(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "Fish and Wildlife Management Report April 1, 1960"

No.51 AP" 1 1960 




ONTARIO 



FISH AND WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 

REPORT 



PROVINCE OF ONTARIO 

DEPARTMENT OF LANDS AND FORESTS 
Division of Fish and Wildlife 



(THESE REPORTS ARE FOR INTRA-DEPARTMENTAL INFORMATION AND NOT FOR PUBLICATION) 



Hon. J. W. Spooner F - A " MacDougall 

Minister Deputy Minister 



TABLE OF CONTENTS 
No. 51 April, I960 



Page 

Legal Aspects of Wildlife Control In Ontario. 

- by F. A. Walden 1 

Mid-winter Waterfowl Inventory, Ontario, I960. 

- compiled by G. F. Boyer 7 

Summary of Fall, Spring and Summer Goose and Duck 
Kills In the Moosonee Division, 1959. 

- by A. Gagnon 11 

Report of the 1959 Pheasant Season In the Regulated 
Townships of the Lake Simcoe Districts. 

- by J. S. Dorland 14 

Mourning Dove Road Counts, Lake Erie District, 195#- 

59. - by L. J. Stock 19 

Caribou Hunter Interviews In Patricia Central and 

Patricia West, 1959. - by D. W. Simkin 21 

The Desirability of Chemical Evaluation of Lakes In 

Ontario. - by R. A. Ryder 2$ 

Winter Fishing For Speckled Trout In the Northern 
Region During Winter of 195$ • 

- by N. D. Patrick 34 

Creel Census - Gogama District, 1959. 

- by J. E. Culliton 37 

Index to Fish and Wildlife Management Reports, July, 

1951 to February, I960, Numbers 1 to 50. 47 



(THESE REPORTS ARE FOR INTRA-DEPARTMENTAL 
INFORMATION AND NOT FOR PUBLICATION) 



-IL- 
LEGAL ASPECTS OF WILDLIFE CONTROL IN ONTARIO * 

by 
F. A. Walden 

Abstract 

The right to hunt and to possess game is of increasing 
interest on the private lands of southern Ontario. Posses- 
sion is inherent in ownership of the land, as a matter of 
common law. Constitutionally, regulation of the use of game 
is a local interest and is therefore the subject of Provin- 
cial Legislation. Fisheries are regulated by Federal statute. 
Control of wildlife is permitted, since the provisions of 
the Game and Fisheries Act do not apply in defense of pro- 
perty against any animal other than deer, moose or caribou, 
or against certain unprotected birds. The Migratory Bird 
Regulations permit protection of crops from waterfowl. 
Hunters may not enter standing crops without permission of 
the owner, and trespass is forbidden if a hunter has been 
warned. The owner, however, must take legal action against 
a trespasser. Vandalism is a criminal offence. To reduce 
concentration of hunters in southern Ontario close to urban 
centres, a township license must be obtained to hunt fox, 
rabbits or pheasants, and limited numbers of licenses are 
issued. The use of pesticides is not regulated in relation 
to wildlife unless intent to kill wildlife is shown. If 
pesticides deleterious to fish enter a stream, it is an 
offense under The Fisheries Act (Canada). Careful use of 
pesticides is a moral responsibility. 

Those who dwell upon and work the land bear a relationship 
to the wildlife resource, rarely equalled in its intimacy, by any 
other social group. Wildlife is a produce of the land. Its abundance 
depends upon the fertility of the soil and the way in which the land 
is used. The importance of wildlife to man has been well known since 
early times. In its various forms it has provided food, shelter, 
clothing, industrial products, and recreation, and it has added to 
the beauty and enjoyment of the landscape, throughout the years. The 
very existence of wildlife has certain social and legal implications, 
particularly to the landowner, and some of these will be discussed. 

A farmer may have a direct and voluntary interest in that 
he participates in the harvest of fur or game from his land, and 
indeed, he may act to improve habitat conditions for such creatures. 
Or his interest may arise involuntarily, due to that of others in the 
wildlife resources of his farm. 

The relationship of the farmer or landowner, together with 
certain rights they may possess is of historical interest. The 
forest or game laws arose with the Feudal System. Hunting has long 
been esteemed as a sport for kings and those of high rank who bore 
arms. When England was conquered by the Normans, the King claimed 
ownership of all the game whether on private lands or not. This was 
contrary to the rights enjoyed by landowners in Saxon times. When 
the Great Charter was obtained from King John, a Forest Charter was 
obtained as well. A charter comprises a statement of rights of the 



Paper given at the Conference on Fish and Wildlife Control and 
Management on Southern Ontario Farms. Ont. Agricultural College, 
Guelph, January 13, I960. 



- 2 - 

people acknowledged by the King. Briefly, the game in the royal 
forests was reserved for the use of the King, but rights were granted 
to take game in chase (unenclosed land) or in park (enclosed land). 
No one could take or kill a beast of chase, namely deer, fox or marten, 
unless he had a chase or park. Other game, including hares and wild- 
fowl, was considered to be inferior but could be taken on a franchise 
granted by the Crown which was called free warren. There was an 
implication in granting these rights that the game would be protected 
and prosper since the landowner had their sole and exclusive use on 
his own land. Subsequent Forest Charters have been granted, the last 
by Henry VIII. The rights expressed have been the subject in detail of 
many court cases and are now a matter of common law. The right to 
possess game is inherent in the ownership of the land and there are 
many decisions recorded respecting the various circumstances in the 
possession of game and concerning entry upon private lands to take 
game. 

The common law holds in Canada, as it does in England, but 
traditionally hunting has taken place fully on enclosed and unen- 
closed lands. However, increasing population, particularly in southern 
Ontario, is giving rise to new interest in rights of hunting and 
possessing game. 

The first law protecting game in Ontario was passed in 1$21. 
In 1$56, a precedent of constitutional importance was established. 
An act protecting game, passed by the Legislature, stated that this 
law was made only for Upper Canada and thus the concept that game 
regulation is of local interest only, was established for Canada. 
In contrast, the British North America Act indicated that fisheries 
are of broad interest, and regulations concerning fish and fishing 
are federal statutes. Fish and game laws are provided to regulate 
means and quantity of the harvest and to provide for the continuing 
supply of wildlife resources through application of sound management 
principles. The statutes of direct interest here, include The Game 
and Fisheries Act, R.S.O. 1950, The Fisheries Act (Canada) 1932, The 
Migratory Birds Convention Act, and all amendments to date together 
with regulations which have been made pursuant to these acts. 

In examining the Ontario Came and Fisheries Act as amended 
year by year from 1895 to the present, it will be seen that changes 
have been gradual. The principles concerning protection of private 
property, safety and sportsmanship remain the same" changes in seasons, 
bag limits and matters of management have developed with increasing 
knowledge. The traditional concepts derived from the Forest Charter 
remain, since a farmer or his sons, resident on the land may hunt 
birds or certain animals, in season on that land, but a royal franchise, 
better known as a licence, is required to take deer, moose and caribou. 

The right inherent in ownership of the land is expressed in 
Section 7 (4) of the Game and Fisheries Act, but royalties, must be 
paid as prescribed in Section 2$ (l) and the skins of certain animals 
including beaver, fisher, lynx, marten, mink and otter must be sealed 
by an officer of the Department of Lands and Forests, as stated in 



- 3 - 

Section 30. Further, the farmer or his sons cannot extend or transfer 
the rights which they enjoy, to some other person (Section 63). 

The legal aspects of wildlife control are best illustrated 
by Section 35, which reads as follows; 

"Nothing in this Act shall apply to any person taking or destroying 
any animal other than caribou, deer or moose or any bird, other than 
eagles, ospreys and vultures and any bird protected by this Act or 
the Migratory Birds Convention Act (Canada), on his own lands, in 
defence or preservation of his property by any means at any time, but 
he shall within ten days report the pelts of furbearing animals in 
respect of which there is a closed season to the Department and he 
shall not offer them for sale or barter during the closed season 
except under a licence and any fur dealer possessing the pelts shall 
hold the licence and forward it to the Department when applying for 
a licence to ship them out of Ontario or to dress or tan them." 

This Section recognizes that wildlife may from time to time cause 
damage to property or crops and the landowner is fully authorized to 
protect his assets by destroying any animal other than deer, moose or 
caribou and certain protected birds. He should, however, be prepared 
to prove that damage was sustained. 

Members of the deer family, no longer enjoy the status or 
esteem which accompanies royal prerogative though their popularity 
with the majority of hunters is not questioned. The reason then, 
that exception is made lies in the fact that there is no universal 
open season for hunting deer in Ontario, and to permit the landowner 
the right to defend his property from the intrusions of deer would 
lead to many questions as to the propriety of legislation which could 
readily be abused. 

Birds protected by the Game and Fisheries Act are enumer- 
ated in Section 37, and include ruffed grouse, spruce partridge, 
Hungarian partridge, pheasant, sharp-tailed grouse, prairie hen, 
ptarmigan, quail and wild turkey, if any now exist in Ontario. Of 
all these, the pheasant is the only one likely to intrude itself in 
a way damaging to crops or property, but such occasions are sufficiently 
rare that relief from protection for this bird is not justified. 

Wanton destruction of hawks and owls as well as eagles, 
ospreys and vultures is forbidden, but crows, cowbirds, blackbirds, 
starlings and house sparrows may be destroyed at any time. 

In exercising the right conferred in Section 35> it is 
evident that the provisions of Section 46 restricting the hours when 
guns, rifles or firearms may be used, would not apply. 

Certain migratory birds, including waterfowl, are known to 
damage crops upon occasion. Provision for protecting crops is made 
in The Migratory Bird Regulations. In general, the chief game officer 
for a province may grant a permit authorizing the killing of migratory 
birds that are causing or are likely to cause serious damage to crops 
or other interests in particular areas. 



- 4 - 

Wolves and bears are not protected and may be killed at any- 
time of the year. A bounty is payable by the Province in respect of 
wolves killed anywhere, and for bears killed in agricultural townships 
within certain counties. 

Under the common law, no redress is made by the Crown for 
damage attributed to game which is the property of the Crown. 

Some hunters seem to assume that possession of a hunting 
licence conveys privilege with respect to private lands, although it 
is stated clearly on the licence that such is not the case. 

The Game and Fisheries Act deals with this specifically as 
follows? 

Section 62 . - (1) No person with any sporting implement or fishing 
rod or tackle in his possession, shall enter or allow any dog to enter 
into any growing or standing grain or any other crop, whether of the 
same kind or not, without the permission of the owner. 

(la) No person in a party of more than twelve persons 
shall hunt or attempt to hunt or with any gun or sporting implement 
enter upon any enclosed or unenclosed land in a county without the 
written permission of the owner or a person authorized by the owner 
to give such permission. 

(4) Nothing in this section limits or in any way affects 
the remedy at common law of an owner for trespass. 

S ection 62 . - (2) No person shall hunt or fish or with any gun or 
sporting implement, fishing rod or tackle in his possession go upon 
any enclosed or unenclosed land or water after he has had notice not 
to hunt or fish thereon by the owner either by word of mouth, in 
writing or by posters or signboards so placed that they may be observed 
from any point of access to the land. 

(4) Nothing in this section limits or in any way affects 
the remedy at common law of an owner for trespass. 

(5) Every person found contravening subsection 2 may be 
apprehended without warrant by any peace officer or by the owner of 
the land on which the contravention takes place, or by the servant of, 
or any person authorized by, such owner, and be taken forthwith to 
the nearest justice of the peace to be dealt with according to law. 

Several principles are noteworthy here. Firstly, there is 
the complete exclusion of the sportsman from standing crops unless he 
has permission to enter. Secondly, large parties of hunters are 
excluded from private lands. Thirdly, and of great importance, is the 
onus upon the landowner to protect his own land from trespass, and 
Section 6 (6a) purposely excludes protection of private property from 
the duties of a Conservation Officer. Finally, the right is given for 



- 5 - 

the landowner or his employee to arrest and bring the trespasser before 
a justice of the peace. In this respect The Game and Fisheries Act 
provides more strength than the Petty Trespass Act. 

It is recognized that all hunting and hunters are affected 
by acts of vandalism and the destruction of livestock and property 
which is committed by some hunters. These are criminal acts, and the 
Department of Lands and Forests does not administer the criminal code. 
It is impossible to deal with crime of this kind by juggling laws 
dealing primarily with game and fish. 

All such cases should be reported to the police immediately, 
whether the offenders are known or not. Our Conservation Officers 
would like to know of the circumstances too. The record of reported 
cases of vandalism and destruction shows that these acts are rare, or 
are all the cases reported? 

Piany violations of the Criminal Code committed by hunters 
are not indictable, and it will be found the police encourage the 
victim to lay the charge, since whoever lays the charge must bear the 
costs if the case is lost. Farmers are certainly interested in the 
growing concern expressed by the legal profession that court costs 
influence justice. Notwithstanding, the Criminal Code and The Game 
and Fisheries Act provide the means for protecting private property. 
In Britain and Europe, where there is really tight control over hunting 
and fishing on private property, there are no Conservation Officers 
paid from the public account. Public hunting is a public charge, no 
matter where it takes place. Privately ordered hunting or lack of it, 
is not. 

In certain townships, hunting for foxes, rabbits and pheasants 
is regulated, pursuant to Section 24a of the Act, by means of a township 
licence. It is essential that the township enter into an agreement 
with the Department and that they make licences available if the 
requirement that hunters have a township licence is to be met. An 
attempt to prevent hunting, by failure to supply licences, would infer 
that hunting was not restricted in such a township. The obvious great 
benefit of this licence system is that it limits the concentration of 
hunters in townships adjacent to the large urban municipalities, and 
spreads the hunting pressure over a wide area. 

The use of pesticides is related directly to wildlife 
management. However, Section 45 of the Game and Fisheries Act, which 
prohibits the use of poison to take game, would not apply in the 
event that wildlife was killed by means of what is commonly accepted 
as a pesticide, unless intent could be shown. One might presume, 
however, that should protected animals or birds suffer unduly due to 
excessive or negligent use of pesticides, legislation would be sought 
to alleviate the condition. 

Cases are known where rotenone, used in warble fly control, 
has entered streams during clean-up of equipment. Rotenone is highly 
poisonous to fish, as well as to other cold-blooded creatures, and 
speckled trout were lost in the streams, as a result. 



- 6 - 

The act of permitting rotenone, or any substance deleterious 
to fish to enter a stream is an offence under the Fisheries Act. 
Similarly, where poisonous substances are used under the Pesticides 
Act, to fumigate mills or other buildings adjacent to streams or lakes, 
precautions must be taken to prevent their escape, since failure to do 
so would be contrary to the Fisheries Act and would imply failure to 
comply with the Regulations under The Pesticide Act. 

The principles of legal controls respecting wildlife include 
certain rights which go with ownership of the land respecting use of 
game. Prevention of trespass is provided for, but the onus of preven- 
tion is upon the owner of the land. The duty of the Conservation 
Officer is to promote the public interest, and he is enjoined not to 
assume responsibility for private property. Any person may defend 
his land from damage due to game animals, excluding deer, moose, caribou, 
and from migratory birds with permission. Game birds, protected by the 
Ontario Game and Fisheries Act are unlikely to do damage, though in the 
event that pheasants persist in doing damage, the matter should be 
referred to an officer of the Department of Lands and Forests, Direct 
action against the birds is illegal. Congestion of pheasant hunters 
is discouraged by the township licence system. 

While no legislation is directly related to preventing damage 
to wildlife by pesticides, there is a moral responsibility to exercise 
care in their use. Damage to fish through escape of pesticides into 
public waters is an offence against the Fisheries Act, The Pesticides 
Act and Regulations provides for broad standards of care in the use 
of pesticides. 

I am indebted to Dr. C. H. D. Clarke for his kind assistance 
in preparation of this paper. The shortcomings and omissions are my 
own. 



- 7 - 

MID-WINTER WATERFOWL INVENTORY, ONTARIO, I960, 

compiled by 
G. F. Boyer 



Abstract 

The coverage for the January Midwinter Waterfowl 
Inventory in Ontario was the same as in previous years. 
Ontario Department of Lands and Forests personnel again 
aided by taking aerial counts. Adverse flying conditions 
caused a delay of several days and counts were not 
completed until January 20. A table showing numbers 
of the various species seen and the area in which they 
were found is given. This year's total of 70,844 water- 
fowl is compared with 64,830 for 1959 and 90,161 for 
1958. 



The coverage was the same as in previous years. Ground 
counts were made by voluntary co-operators and aerial coverage was 
obtained by a Beaver Aircraft of the Ontario Department of Lands 
and Forests with personnel from Kemptville, Tweed and Aylmer Forest 
Districts taking part. 

Weather and Water Conditions 

Poor flying conditions were in part responsible for a 
delay of several days in obtaining aerial coverage. Unfortunately 
this delay was further increased by a delay in getting instructions 
out to the field crews on time. The aerial counts in eastern Ontario 
were completed on January 19th when visibility was good with a slight 
overcast. Snow storms in the western part of the province prevented 
the count from being completed on the 19th, so in this area it was 
not finished until the following day. 

In the Kemptville District the only large spaces of open 
water were at Ivy Lea bridge and Prescott. Elsewhere open water was 
restricted to a few "Pot holes." The Bay of Quinte was frozen over 
as were most of the waters of the St. Lawrence River in the Tweed 
District except the off shore waters off Wolfe Island. On Lake 
Ontario the off shore waters along the south and south-west end of 
Prince Edward Co. were mostly open. Most of the ducks in the Tweed 
District were in the vicinity of Wolfe Island. 

In the Lake Erie District there was pack ice along the 
shores of Lake Ontario and Lake Erie and Lake Huron was mostly frozen 
over as was Lake St. Clair. There was open water at the lake at 
Rondeau and east of Point Pelee. The Detroit and St. Clair Rivers 
were mostly open. 



Areas Covered 

(a) Aerial 

1 (a) St. Lawrence River Howe Island to ten miles east of Cornwall 
(b) Lake Ontario and St. Lawrence River in vicinity of Prince 

Edward County and Wolfe Island., 

2 Lake Ontario Hamilton to Niagara on the Lake; Niagara River; 
Long Point Port Stanly; Rondeau to Amherstberg; Detroit 
River (Amherstberg to Lake St. Clair); Lake St. Clair; St. 
Clair River to Point Edward; Point Edward to Long Road. 

(b) Ground 

3 St o Lawrence between Prescott and Ivy Lea 

4 Lake Ontario - Oshawa to Bowmanville 

5 Lake Ontario - Toronto Harbour and Lake Shore from Whitby 
to Bronte; Humber and Don Rivers. 

6 Hamilton Harbour, Dundas Marsh and Lake Ontario from Stoney 
Creek to Bronte. 

7 East River Road to 3A mile south of Gait 

8 Federal Migratory Bird Sanctuary at Guelph. 

9 Grand River from Brantford to Gait. 

10 Jack Miner Bird Sanctuary 

11 Sarnia Bay, Lake Huron Shore at Point Edward, St. Clair 
River south to Sombra. 



and area; 



The results of the I960 mid-winter inventory by species 



-p 
o 

Eh 



C^O( v > l AWH'AO-c)-nCVO-0&WHWHOHt!0 



■J- 



rH U^, 



\OHCVtO ur\ 



vO 



[>- 



-4 

-4- 

•to 

o 



H 



-40 rH O O CV u-\ o 

u-\ N O'A H O 

I I I I rH I -4CM I I I I O I I 



O 



O O O CV 

O O O r-\ 

|OIC\2UA|||l|||| I I I I | I 



O 



-CO £>- u-n _J- 

III O I I I I I rH I I I I I I II 



to 



I I I r^urs 



I I I I I rH I I I I I 



I rH rH O 



o 
u 

CD 

> 
o 

o 

ct! 
CD 
Jh 



r- 



vO 



ITN 



-4 



m 



OvO 

I I I rHvO 



I I I OvO 



I I I I I I I I I I 



rH rH OJ C^ O "-^ '-^ rH rH 

I "CO OVtO r-\ I 

-4 



I I 



■CC >J-\ 



I I I I I 



oo 
I I I o o 



rH rH tO UA rH C^- CV \C r-\ r-\ 

\D ooto 

r>- in to 

rH 



I I I I M K 14 

CV r-\ r-\ 



OO 

I I I I O O I I I I I 



I rH I I 



O 
I O I I 



rHvO r-\ 

o 



I I I 



o 

I O I I 

ON 



C\2 



C^O cv -4 

HO rH O 

-4 1 CM c^ 



r-i O CM "CO \0 Lf> ON 

CM vO CNvO to O 

I I ^ C^O I till \ <r\ 

^ *>s •» <A 



^—. 




CM rH tO>A c^-O O O 


U"\ IT\ 




& 


i i 


1 r-\ 1 -4-4- 1 OvO O 1 


o to 
<r\ i | | I en 




r-\ 




C^ CM en 

CV r-\ UA-4" OO 


C\2 

to to 




1$ 




4 \C> -4cv 


\D to 







i i 


1 CV 1 m3 1 1 -4" II 


1 1 1 O 1 




H 






a g 

CD CD 
9-< CO 

G 




CO 


CD 




T5 rt t3 




CD 


CO 




CD hO CD 




-H 


o 


X x -d 


Ch hD G -H 




O 


o 


o o a) a* ^ 


CD G G CD Ch 




CD 


o 


3 ^ ctf >-> CD ct! O 


T3 -H CD ^ -H 




a 




TiPH o -a JD (V x; 3 3 


•H IS CO .p 




CO 


CX! 


G rH Cd CO d CD CTO 


G W 1 G X) £ 






T3 


4J rd ^ cd C ft (D cd (PHOT 


CD £ cd CD CD 


h3 




G cti 


ch o ^ tio^jx; >7jtH n 


-p bD CD bDT3 T( 


<H 




cd G 


rdH 03^3 C nJTl CHCht) O 


O G CD G O -H 


&H 




£ ct! 


JnrdHcd-HO(l)n10^HO 


O -H G CD O G 


O 




COOmAfflOCriCOtfOOfflOScOWOA^D 


&H 



1 : 



- 10 - 

TABLE II - Comparison of I960 Inventory With 19^8 and 1959. 





Species 


1958 


1959 
15 


I960 


Whistling Swan 


17 


Canada Goose 


2,800 


2,000 


4,400 


Blue Goose 


20 


- 


- 


Brant 


- 


- 


3 


Mallard 


3,229 


1,323 


1,425 


Black Duck 


6,247 


11,242 


5,492 


Gadwall 


- 


- 


1 


Ringneck 


- 


200 


475 


Scaup 


18,499 


23,081 


16,160 


Redhead 


- 


713 


1,174 


Canvasback 


27,703 


4,513 


2,263 


Goldeneye 


12,854 


8,159 


8,562 


Bufflehead 


617 


135 


859 


Old Squaw 


10,088 


3,102 


15,838 


Wood Duck 


50 


25 


12 


Scoter 


30 


50 


321 


King Eider 


2 


- 


2 


Green-winged Teal 


- 


- 


1 


Merganser 


232 


1,520 


6,020 


Hooded Merganser 


- 


- 


1 


Harlequin 


2 


4 


- 


Unidentified 


7,788 
90,161 


8,798 
64,880 


7,718 


TOTAL 


70,844 



- 11 - 

SUMMARY OF FALL, SPRING AND SUMMER 
GOOSE AND DUCK KILLS IN THE 
MOOSONEE DIVISION, 1959 

by 
A, Gagnon 



Abstract 

Lands and Forests Officers and RCMP personnel collected 
data on the kill of geese and ducks from hunters and 
Indian families in the James Bay area of the Moosonee 
Division during 1959. Checking stations were estab- 
lished at the mouth of the Moose River, North Bluff, 
Fort Albany and Hannah Bay. A total of 1345 hunters 
killed 17,133 geese and ducks. Waterfowl kills by 
Indian families during the fall of 195& and spring of 
1959 was 31,139. Statistics comparing kills of Blue- 
Snow and Canada Geese and ducks for the past three 
years are given. 



Statistics were taken from the check stations at the 
mouth of the Moose River, Len Hughes* Camp, Fort Albany, Bill Anderson 
Fort Albany, James Bay Goose Club at North Bluff, 22 miles along the 
west coast from Moosonee and Ontario Northland Goose Camp, Hannah 
Bay, approximately 50 miles east of Moosonee along the east coast; 
also data collected from the Indian families for their fall, spring 
and summer kills in Patricia East portion. 

This year's data were collected similar to last year's. 
Such as; the hunter's name, address, license number, species and 
number of kills. 

Patrol activities and collection of data from the hunters 
and Indian families at the two check stations were carried out by 
Lands and Forests personnel. Statistics from the licensed hunting 
camps were collected by the R.C.M.P. personnel. 

Lindy Louttit, Ranger and the writer collected data from 
all the Indian families from Lake River, Attawapiskat, Fort Albany, 
Mopse Factory and Moosonee areas for the fall, spring and summer 
kills. Data from each individual Indian were sent to Maple and 
District Office with the annual report. A summary of the kills is 
included in this report. 

Sanctuary 

The Moose River Bird Sanctuary at the mouth of the Moose 
River which consists of two locations; one part being on Shipsand 
Island on the west shore and one on the east shore, from the mouth 
of the Moose River to Partridge Creek. Both pr,rts consist of approxi- 
mately 3600 acres. The establishment of the sanctuary to improve the 



- 12 - 



hunting for the Indians paid off to quite a percentage, especially 
on the goose kills. 

Sanctuary was established in January 1955. 

Number of Kills for the Past Three Years, Moose River Check Station. 











Fall 

1957 
195^ 
1959 


Blue-Snow 

Geese 


Canada 
Geese 

124 
166 

204 


Ducks 


Number of hunters 
American hunters 
American hunters 


7% 
8% 


509 

944 
1034 


3504 

7521 

11557 


1567 
1329 

1452 


O.N.R. Hannah Bay 














Number of hunters 
American hunters 
American hunters 


90$ 
78% 


131 

95 

101 


1957 
1955 
1959 


1136 

1155 

924 


31 
10 
20 


565 
225 
219 


James Bay Goose Club 












Number of hunters 
American hunters 
American hunters 


40% 

40% 


85 
63 
68 


1957 
1955 
1959 


562 
797 
735 


10 
10 
13 


113 
122 
166 


Len Hughes, Fort Albany 

Number of hunters 
American hunters 50% 
American hunters 51% 


107 

97 

101 


1957 
1955 
1959 


1035 
1142 
1039 


36 
11 
17 


72 

51 

219 


Bo Andreson, Fort 


Albany 


53 
41 


1955 
1959 


370 
459 


5 
11 




Number of hunters 
American hunters 
American hunters 


33% 
51% 


"l5 
65 



A rough estimate on the birds not accounted for, such as 
eaten in the field, lost, etc. during the goose hunt was approxima- 
tely 1,000 birds. These have not been included in this report. 

Weather 

Weather conditions for the past three years for goose hunting 
were as follows; Seasons - 1957 fair 

1955 good 
1959 good 

Patrols 



Goose patrols were carried out extensively by the Dept. 
staff this fall as the R.C.M.P. did not have the help and equipment 
required as in previous years. 



- 13 



Convictions 



There were only two charges laid this past fall. Both 
charges were laid to Treaty Indians, one being gainfully employed. 
Charges were laid for hunting and having in their possession geese 
and ducks on the sanctuary. Both parties concerned were found 
guilty. There were a few minor infractions which were settled in 
the field. As a whole the hunting regulations were observed by the 
outside hunters and local people to a degree that satisfied the 
enforcement staff. 



Indian Family Waterfowl Kills In Patricia East Portion 
F or Fall, Spring and Summer 





Summer and Fall of 


1958, 


Spring 


of 1959. 




Moosonee 


Fort 

Fall 

1104 
4278 
1128 


Albany 
Spring 

2205 

1483 

670 


Attawapiskat 
Fall Spring 

547 2909 
5054 2868 
2643 564 




Fall Spring 


Total 


Canada Geese 104 1963 
Blue-Snow Geese 1686 1075 
Ducks 489 419 


8832 

16444 

5913 






31189 



C heck Stations and License Camps Total Kill for 1959 

Number of Hunters 1345 

Canada Geese 265 

Blue-Snow Geese 14714 

Ducks 2154 

TOTAL 17133 

GRAND TOTAL 48322 



- 14 - 

REPORT OF THE 1959 PHEASANT SEASON IN THE 
REGULATED TOWNSHIPS OF THE LAKE SIMCOE DISTRICT 

by 
J. S. Dorland 



Abstract 

A lengthened open season for pheasants was provided in 
the 16 Regulated Townships of Lake Simcoe District „ A 
field check of 1700 hunters revealed a harvest of 7^0 
pheasants in 4100 man-hours of hunting for an average 
of .44 pheasants per hunter. Some 14,540 day-old and 
poult pheasants had been provided for stocking by the 
Department of which 1$33 were banded and released in 
Whitchurch and Pickering Townships. Of the total kill 
in Whitchurch Township 51 per cent were banded birds. 
Figures are given to show that costs per banded bird 
harvested was $14«$2. Hunting pressure as indicated 
by the purchase of township licences increased by 
approximately 1700 over the previous year. 



This year the Regulated Townships in the District experienced 
their first year of any lengthy open season for pheasants. Of the 
16 Regulated Townships, half enjoyed an open season of 16 days and 
the remainder 10 days. The majority of the hunting was confined to 
the 10 lower townships where our officers contacted some 1700 hunters 
who harvested 730 pheasants in some 4100 man-hours of hunting for 
an average of .44 pheasants per hunter. 

Few sunny days greeted the hunter with the majority of the 
days being overcast, cool with occasional drizzle turning into heavy 
rain. Previous to the open season the Department provided the 
Regulated Townships with 14*540 day-old and poult pheasants for release 
within the Townships (see chart #2j . Prior to the release of these 
pheasants 1833 were leg banded and released in two of the Regulated 
Townships, Whitchurch and Pickering (see chart #3)» At the close of 
the open season figures gathered from Township Authorities and Game 
Commissions show that some 6000 hunters had purchased township 
licences (see chart #4) an increase over the previous year of approxi- 
mately 1700 licences. 



15 



Results of the Open Season, 1959 

Number of Regulated Townships checked 

Number of hunting parties checked 

Number of parties using dogs ■> . . . 

Number of hunters checked 

Number of man-hours hunted 

Cock birds seen 

Hen birds seen 

Cock birds harvested 

Hen birds harvested 

Total birds harvested 

Birds per hunter . ... 

Man-hours hunted per bird 

Percentage of banded birds recovered in Whitchurch 

Percentage of total kill in Whitchurch that was banded 

For a break-down of figures per township see Chart #1. 



ooo«*oeo 

000090001*00 

o o o o © o o r o o o • o rs e t (• a > o D 
oooae«o«>»eooOft*ooo««« 
• ••cooeoooc© 
oooeooooo 

oocoeeoo 
o o • o • * 

O O © O © 



c * 



9 O © O 3 c a 



o*oooo 



o o 



O O ft * « 9 



oe©*oooooooo m o o o 
e«oooooeo«oooooeoooo 
ooooooo:>eoooo->o<. *> o » * 

• oooooooeooorjocooooe 

• oo^oooor. oo-»oooo3ooo 

00000©9C«0000* 

©oooooooocsoo 

• OOOOOQOOOOOO 

ooeocoooo«*>ot 
©•o^oeoooooocooo 
ooooororooooooop 

O ->nnor>o#0O00«»0« 
• 099 



© • © 



O 9 



o e 



• O « 

o • o 

o a ♦ 
o 
©00 
9 

c • o 

• 00 

o a 
o ct o 

Of* 

/--no 

• • o 



9 O 

• 

O n 

• a 

e e 



10 

700 

382 
1769 
U05 
1105 

359 

529 

251 

780 

• 44 

5.1 
10.3$ 
51$ 



Remarks 

Best results to the hunter were obtained in the Townships 
of East Whitby and King where the average success per hunter was .58 
pheasants or one pheasant for four hours of hunting. Close to half 
of the pheasants shot this year were hens, however, it added little 
to the harvest per hunter which still remains very poor throughout 
the District. 



Nil reports on pheasant harvest were received from the 
Townships of Adjala, Tecumseth, West Gwillimbury, East Gwillimbury, 
Albion and Toronto Gore, where it must be concluded that the pheasant 
density is very small and the areas lightly hunted. 

The extended season this year, besides spreading the hunting 
out added very little to the average hunter's bag, although more dogs 
were in use than in previous years. It must be said however, that the 
ardent hunter who hunts with a dog seldom comes home without a bird. 



p 
o 

x 

CO 

CO 
X) 

u 

•H 

PQ 



CD 
CD 
CO 

CO 
T3 

Jh 
•H 

pq 



• 




P 


CQ 




fl 


Jh 




cd 


DC 


fn 


CO 


1 


CD 


(0 


c pu 


CD 


05 




X! 


S 




Pu 







U 


CO 




CD 


X5 


£ 


-P 


h 


CD 


C 


•H CL, 


3 


CQ 




DC 




H 


co 


03 T5 P 


-P 


£ o 


o 


•H X 


Eh pq co 



CO 

c 

CD 



CO 

o 

o 
o 



CO 

c 

CD 

DC 



CO 

o 
o 

o 








n 


CO 


CD 


u 


-p 


3 


c 


O 


3 


DC DC 





CO 


<H 


u 


o 


CD 




P 


• 


C 


o 


ps 


S DC 



CO 






CD 


bO 




•H 


C 


CO 


P 


•H 


bl 


h 


CO 


O 


03 CD Q 


Ph 









CO 


cm 


CD 


O 


•H 




P 


• 


$h 


o 


03 


S Ph 



•H 
CO 



O 

Eh 



to 

nO 


■oo 




•oo 

rH 


cv 

rH 


c*n. 


-4 


H 


o 

rH 


-oo 

H 


nO 
H 


rH 




rH 
-4 


rH 


rH 
rH 


O 


-4" 



o 


O 


H 


£>- 


cv 


o 


-4 


o 


rH 


ITN. 


o 


-4 


-oo 


-oo 


cv 


CN 


H 


o 



t>- 


rH 


rH 


CV 


sO 


CV 


nO 


u> 


o- 


-4 


o 

H 


U> 


CV 
rH 


nO 
rH 


nO 


Lf\ 


cv 


rH 



-4 


U"\ 


O 


o 


-oo 


-4 


-co 


to 


CV 


o- 


rH 


-oo 


H 


CV 


UA 


nO 


Oi 


rH 
CV 



O 


cn. 


O 


c- 


CV 


■oo 


t*^ 


nO 


-4 


CV 


CV 


r>- 



u> 



-4 


rH 


t> 


-4 


nO 


UT\ 


u~\ 


rH 


0^ 


CV 




-oo 



-4 


LT\ 


ON 


vO 


r>- 


£> 


rH 


t> 


o 


UA 


ro 


-4 


H 


nC 


-oo 


ON 


CV 


H 


rH 


rH 


rH 


Lf\ 


rH 








c^\ 



O 


nO 


IT\ 


ir\ 


nO 


O 


NO 


-4 


ON 


-4 


O 


c~\ 


rH 


rH 



UA 



t>- 



o 


rH 


NO 


ON 


Cf> 


nO 


NO 


on 


O 


sO 


-4 


IA 


-oo 


£>- 


ro 


ON 


H 


o> 



UA 
Oi 





















>* 




















CO 










X 










p< 




>, 


bO 




o 










o 




X 


c 




SH 










o 




P 


•H 


a 


cs 


G 




JC 


o 


03 


>> 


•H 


*H 


03 


X 


03 




O 


p 


P5 


X 


XJ 


CD 


X 


o 


X 




X) 


$C 


bO 


p 


9 


J*i 


^ 


p 


bO 


bO 


CD 


o 


d 


•H 




o 


Sh 


•H 


pS 


$C 


rH 


rH 


•H 


x 


• 


•H 


03 


X! 


03 


•H 


cd 


O 


X 


3s 


w 


Ph 


S 


5 


> 


W 


o 


Eh 


O 



ON 


O 


UA 


■oo 




£>- 



ON? 



-4 


ON 


<r\ 


CV 




ir> 



cv 


O^ 


NO 


ir\ 




-co 





UOv 


ON 


H 


NO 


rH 




rH 



ON 


U^ 


ON 


O 


("A 


rH 




-4 



OA 


ON 


r<\ 


NO 


rH 


£>- 




rH 



-oo 


CV 


CN2 


-co 




ro 



-4 


o 


NO 


o 




£>- 



X) 






O 


CD 






P 


P 






c 


CJ 






o 


03 


X 




Jh 


rH 


o 




o 


Cm 






Eh 


CO 


X 




•* 


T3 


o 




c 


Ih 


p 




o 


•H 


•H 




•H 


X 


s 




X 

rH 


<H 






< 


O 


»> 








c 




•» 


S 


OS 




iC 


fn 


X 




O 


CD 


bO 




TJ 


> 


2 




CD 


O 


03 




H 


o 


> 




OS 


CD 






O 


Ih 


•» 








bO 




•> 


^ 


sc 




>> 


ro 


•H 




u 


o 


W 




PS 


O 






•9 * 


H 


»* 




B CD 




bO 




•H Jh 


cti 


C! 


• 


rH O 




•H 


>> 


rH a 


CO 


Sh 


Jh 


•H 


<H 


CD 


3 


£ O 




X X 


O P 


CO 


o 


S 


c 


•H 


•H 


■H 


• O 


X 


Ph rH 


33 Jh 


p 




H 


o 




■* 


-H 


~Eh 


•> 


>>£ 


X 


Ph 


X o 


P T3 


•H 


p 




CD £ 


X 


•H 


• 


CO ctf 


CO 


X W 


£ 


c 


^ 




3 >> 


5 




n 


O CO 


o 


c 


c 


CD ^S 


Eh 


H 


03 


Eh O 
O 


X 


SH 


s 


•» oS 


O 


>» 03 


03 P3 


U 


XX 


rH bO 


2 


P ^H 


03 iC 


X 


•H 


Sh 


•r-3 -H 


o 


X 


03 


X5 X 


P 


>-^» 


S 


<o 


•H 








£ 


1 




1 


>^=* 










o 




NO 


JC 


H 




rH 


•H 


1 




, 


rH 








rH 


£ 




5C 


CT3 


O 




O 


- 


CO 




CO 




03 




03 


r^ 


CD 







NO 


CO 




CO 


1 


£ 




fC 




CD 




CD 


P 


CU 




ft 


O 


O 




O 


X 








CO 


CO 




CO 




>> 




>> 


CO 


03 




03 


X3 


X3 




X3 


Jh 








•H 


Ch 




Oh 


X 


o 




O 


X3 


h 




U 


CD 


CD 




CD 


TJ 


X 




X 


C 


E 




S 


03 


PS 




PS 


PQ 


S 




a 



- 17 - 
CHART #2 - Pheasant Distribution - Lake Simcoe District, 1959 



Township 



TOTAL 



Day Olds 



Poults 



7000 



6100 



Adults 



200 



Total 



Whitby 


700 


700 


20 


1420 


East Whitby 


900 


1000 


20 


1920 


Pickering 


1000 


1100 


20 


2120 


Markham 


500 


500 


20 


1020 


Whit church 


600 


1000 


20 


1620 


Vaughan 


1000 


1000 


20 


2020 


King 


500 


900 


20 


1420 


Peel County 


1000 


1100 


20 


2120 


Adjala 


- 


150 


6 


156 


Tecumseth 


- 


150 


6 


156 


West Gwillimbury 


50 


150 


6 


206 


East Gwillimbury 


- 


150 


12 


162 


Barrie Sportsmen 


350 


100 


- 


450 


Stayner Sportsmen 


200 


- 


- 


200 


Miscellaneous 


- 


100 


10 


110 



15300 



CHART #3 - Pheasants Banded - In the Regulated Townships, Lake 
Simcoe District, 1959 « 



Number Banded 



733 

1000 
100 



Number Used 

LS 1-LS 733 

LS 1001-LS 2000 

LS 901-LS 1000 



Townships Released In 



Whitchurch 
Whit church 
Pickering 



Total pheasants banded and released - 1633 



- id - 

CHART #4 - T ownship Licences Issued Up To and Including Oct. 31, 1959 







Issuers 


Non-resident 
339 


Resident Licences 


Whitby 


231 


E. Whitby 




- 


- 


Pickering 




415 


463 


Markham 




1095 


395 


Whitchurch 




256 


232 


Vaughan 




135 


203 


King 




424 


246 


Caledon 




53 


37 


Albion 




201 


42 


Chinquacousy 




226 


130 


Toronto Gore 




, 93 


12 


Toronto 




200 


421 


E. Gwillimbury 




70 


92 


W. Gwillimbury 




72 


74 


Tecuraseth 




159 


63 


Adjala 




34 


19 


TOTAL 




3327 


2720 



Costs of Planting Banded Pheasants In Whitchurch Township 
and Cost of a Banded Pheasant Harvested - 1959 

Provincial costs of raising and delivering 
pheasants chicks and poults to township - 

800 day-olds @ .43 - $ 334.00 

1000 poults @ $1.57 - frl 570*00 

TOTAL ^1954.00 

Township costs of raising 733 day-old to poults - f 36O.OO 

Township costs of raising 200 poults to near adults - ^ 176.00 

TOTAL I 536.00 

Total costs for releasing 1733 banded pheasants - ^2490.00 

Total township licences issued to October 31* 1959 - 433 

94% of licencee*s hunted pheasants or 459 
Hunter success - .74 pheasants 

Total estimated pheasants harvested - 338 

50.1% of recorded harvest were banded birds or - 169 

Costs per banded bird harvested - $ 14.32 



- 19 - 

MOURNING DOVE ROAD COUNTS, 
LAKE ERIE DISTRICT, 1958-59 

by 
L. J. Stock 

Abstract 

Detailed statistics are presented of roadside counts 
of Mourning Doves in Lake Erie District during the 
past two years. Results showed 22 doves per 100 miles 
in 1958 compared with 26 per 100 miles in 1959« A 
summary for the past four years ia given. 



Mourning Dove Random Road Counts for 1958-59 ar © presented 
in detail with a condensed summary for the past four years. 

Please note that the high count for 1956 was due largely to 
two large flocks in Norfolk County, which accounted for approximately 
one-half of the total. 

Statistics for the Mourning Dove Road Counts 
L ake Erie District, 1958 







Number of Doves 


Seen 












In Flocks 


















3 or 


More 


Pairs 


Singl 


es 


Total 
Count 

4 


Total 

Miles 

25 


Doves 
Per 100 

Miles 


Month 


No. 


i 


No. 
4 


100 


No. 


i. 


April 


16 


May 


116 


17 


256 


36 


322 


47 


704 


5252 


13 


June 


137 


16 


350 


41 


379 


43 


866 


5198 


17 


July 


74 


19 


184 


47 


134 


34 


392 


2898 


14 


August 


428 


39 


388 


35 


287 


26 


1103 


3845 


29 


September 


902 


55 


374 


23 


371 


22 


1647 


4237 


39 


October 


6 


13 


22 


49 


17 


38 


45 


309 


15 


District 




Totals 


1663 


11 


1578 


33 


1520 


32 


4761 


21764 


22 


Pelee Is. 




July 


12 


_8 


38 


28 


^ 


64 


138 


288 


48 



- 20 - 



Statistics for the Mourning Dove Road Counts 
Lake Erie District, 1959 

Number of Doves Seen 



Month 



April 
May 
June 
July- 
August 
September 

District 
Totals 

Pelee Is. 
July 



t .. re i -. ~ i - 



3 or More 
No. jo_ No. 



Pairs Singles 



59 8 

76 12 

173 22 

100 12 

1^3 47 



2 

302 
176 
250 

284 
76 



jo_ No. J_ 



67 
42 
29 
33 
33 
19 



1 
355 
3 59 
347 
470 
132 



33 

50 
59 
45 
55 
34 



4 



26 29 



59 66 



Total 
Count 

3 
715 
611 
770 
354 
391 



591 18 1090 32 1664 50 3344 



89 



Total 
Miles 

34 
4406 
3116 
1826 
2832 
617 

12831 

117 



Doves 
Per 100 

Miles 



9 
16 
20 
42 
30 
63 



26 



76 



Summary For the Past Four Years Entire District 
Number of Doves Seen 



1956 (Sept. only) 

1957 (May-Sept.) 

1958 (Apr. -Oct.) 

1959 (Apr. -Sept.) 

Pelee Island 
(July only) 

1957 
1958 
1959 



Doves 



In Flocks 

3 or More Pairs Singles Total Total Per'lOO 

No. $_ No. j&_ No. JL Count Miles Miles 



2852 


79 


404 


11 


373 


10 


3629 


5124 


70.5 


429 


29 


2 52 


34 


553 


37 


i486 


8174 


18 


1663 


35 


1578 


33 


1529 


32 


4761 


21764 


22 


591 


18 


1090 


32 


I664 


50 


3344 


12831 


26 



34 


21 


20 


24 


91 


55 


165 


119 


139 


12 


8 


38 


28 


U 


64 


138 


288 


48 


4 


4 


26 


29 


59 


66 


89 


117 


76 



- 21 - 

CARIBOU HUNTER INTERVIEWS IN 
PATRICIA CENTRAL AND PATRICIA WEST, 1959 

by 
D. W. Simkin 

Abstract 

In order to obtain much needed information on woodland 
caribou biology a questionnaire was filled out by 
Department Officers for every native caribou hunter 
contacted at the annual spring trappers 9 meetings in 
1959. Forty-three caribou hunters killed 141 caribou 
(75 adult males. 51 adult females, 11 male calves and 
4 female calves). If the sex ratio of the kill is 
indicative of the sex ratio of the herd a possible 
explanation for the low rate of reproduction in wood- 
land caribou might be evident. There does not appear 
to be any selection made on the part of the hunter 
when he encounters more than one caribou. The bulk of 
the kill is made in November, December, March and 
April. It has been well established that the large 
stags shed their antlers from late November to mid- 
January. Most hunters agree that most caribou herds 
are made up of males and females travelling together 
and the proximity to the rutting season has much to 
do with herd formation and composition. Most caribou 
herds confine themselves to little movement during 
the winter. A definite spring and fall movement has 
been observed in most areas inhabited by caribou. It 
appears that caribou are more plentiful now than they 
have been for 30 or more years throughout Patricia 
Central and Patricia West. Wolf predation on caribou 
appears to be very low, however, when a herd is atta- 
cked, multiple kills may occur. 



At the annual spring trappers 9 meetings in 1959 a ques- 
tionnaire was filled out by Department Officers for every native 
contacted who had shot one or more caribou in the previous year. 
The purpose of this questionnaire was to collect much needed addi- 
tional information on woodland caribou biology. 

This report is an attempt to analyze the questions answered 

Because of language difficulties and lack of knowledge of 
certain topics in the questionnaire on the part of some trappers, all 
questions were not answered on each questionnaire. 



- 22 - 

A total of 43 trappers were interviewed hence 43 ques- 
tionnaires were filled out as completely as possible. 

Analysis 

I T otal Caribou Kill By 43 Indian Trappers 

(a) Forty-three caribou hunters killed 141 caribou. Number of 
caribou per hunter -3.2$. 

(b) The sex and age composition of the killed animals was 75 adult 
males, 51 adult females, 11 male calves, 4 female calves. 

Overall sex ratio was therefore £6 males ; 55 females or 
156 males : 100 females • ■ 

Adult sex ratio was 75 adult males : 51 adult females or 
147 males : 100 females. 

This disproportionate sex ratio in favour of males if 
representative of the actual sex ratio of the herd might account for 
the very slow rate of reproduction in woodland caribou. 

II Hunter Selection 

Forty-one hunters answered the questions on selection of 
animals in the herds. Forty stated that they did not care what 
they shot and that they made no selection between stags and does 
or adults and calves. 

One hunter stated that he tried to shoot the young animals 
if the herd was small and old animals if the herd was large. 
(Perhaps he considered this practice a conservation measure). 

If the hunters were correct in stating that they do not 
make any selection we should assume that the sex and age ratios of 
the kill is representative of the herds. Thus there is a very 
unfavourable sex ratio and reproduction is very low. 

It is possible, however, that they unconsciously select 
the larger animals. This would account for the large proportion of 
adult males and the small proportion of does and calves in the kill. 
The preponderance of mal^s in the calf kill does suggest that an 
unbalanced sex ratio might exist. 

III Temporal Distribution of the Kill in Monthly Periods 
TABLE I - 



Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June Aug. Total 
6 18 22 12 16 23 32 3 2 4 138 



- 23 - 

It is possible that the high proportion of kill in early- 
winter (Nov. Dec.) and late spring (March, April) is merely an 
indication of when the hunters are most active on their trap-lines. 
However, Table II shows that there is an increase in group size from 
October through to April. 

It is my feeling that caribou bands tend to disperse either 
just before or just after calving time and that they remain dispersed 
until the rut, which is probably in mid October or early November. 
After that time the rutting groups tend to travel together until the 
spring when they again disperse. 

TABLE II - To Show Change In Herd Size Throughout Year & 
I ts Effect On Hunting. 



June 



August 



October 



November 



1 1 

IT / 

AV. iiiO./ 

group 1 
January 



4 4 
Av. Mo./ 
group 1 

February 



18 



15 



56 



AV. Ao./ 

group 6 



March 



Av , No 



group 8 



April 



12 34 
Av. No./ 
group 8.75 



12 834 

Av. No./ 
group 16.54 



18 71 

Av. No./ 
group 8.9 



32 



76 



Av . No . / 
group 7*6 



December 



No. 


No. 


No. 


No. 


No. 


No. 


No. 


No. 


No. 


No. 


Shot 


Seen 


Shot 


Seen 


Shot 


Seen 


Shot 


Seen 


Shot 


Seen 


1 


1 


1 


1 


2 


5 


2 


2 


1 


2 


- 


- 


1 


1 


3 


6 


1 


1 


1 


7 


- 


- 


1 


1 


3 


7 


2 


30 


1 


3 


- 


- 


1 


1 


- 


- 


4 


5 


1 


8 


m 


— 


- 


— 


— 


— 


1 


1 


2 


7 


— 


- 


- 


- 


- 


- 


3 


15 


6 


6 


- 


- 


— 


- 


- 


- 


2 


2 


4 


30 


— 


_ 


- 


— 


- 


— 


- 


- 


3 


12 


— 


— 


- 


— 


— 


— 


— 


- 


6 


30 


- 


- 


- 


- 


- 


- 


- 


- 


6 


40 



31 145 
Av. No./ 
group 14.5 



May 



No. 


No. 


No. 


No. 


No. 


No. 


No. 


No. 


No. 


No. 


Shot 


Seen 


Shot 


Seen 


Shot 


Seen 


Shot 


Seen 


Shot 


Seen 


3 


10 


5 


104 


1 


6 


2 


3 


2 


2 


1 


8 


1 


20-25 


2 


7 


2 


9 


1 


1 


1 


2 


1 


7 


2 


3 


4 


10 


- 


- 


7 


14 


1 


6 


2 


9 


5 


10 


- 


- 


- 


- 


4 


40 


2 


3 


1 


6 


- 


- 


- 


- 


- 


- 


3 


30 


1 


1 


- 


- 


- 


- 


- 


- 


3 


10 


3 


15 


- 


- 


— 


- 


- 


- 


3 


3 


2 

2 

10 


5 

6 

11 


- 


— 


_ 


mm 


_ 


_ 


_ 


_ 


_ 


_ 



3 3 

Av. No./ 
group 1.5 



- 24 - 

No doubt the larger the herd the greater the chance of 
making a kill. 

IV Time of Shedding Antlers 

Hunters were questioned on this matter to establish whether 
a winter season for trophy caribou would be feasible. There appears 
to be some variation as to time of shedding but as a rule the large 
stags seem to loose their antlers in December and early January. 

Twenty-eight hunters stated that they start to see stags 
without antlers in December and January. One hunter stated that he 
has seen stags without antlers in October and November. One hunter 
stated that the old and weak carry their antlers until spring. 
(This of course is characteristic of cervids). 

Six recordings from stags shot and reported are worth 
reporting here to verify the above December - January shedding time. 

i Stag with only one antler, shot on December 22nd. 

ii Stag with large antlers, shot on January 15th. 

iii Stag with antlers, shot on November 5th. 

iv Stag with antlers, shot December 17th. 

v Stag without antlers, shot December 17th. 

vi Stag with antlers, shot December 7th. 

From the above it would appear that a trophy season for 
caribou where a large number of licences were to be issued would 
yield more trophies if it were held in November or December. 
However, freeze-up cannot be expected much before mid December in 
most years, hence aircraft hunting would be restricted to the period 
commencing no earlier than December 7th. 

It is possible that a small season (i.e. few licences 
(75-100) might yield a sufficient number of trophy heads after mid 
December to satisfy licence holders. 

V Herd Composition 

(a) Nineteen of 22 hunters answering the questionnaire stated that 
they had often seen herds of males and females mixed. 

(b) Seven of 13 hunters stated that they see herds of does and 

» calves. These herds were reported to be from 3-4 to 10-15 in 
size. Eleven hunters stated that they never see aggregations of 
does and calves alone. 

(c) Eleven of 15 hunters reported that they see herds of stags 
travelling together. These herds are reported to vary in size 
from 2-3 to 15. One herd of 14 was seen in November. 



- 25 - 

As we have no data available on what time of the year most 
of the observations were made the information is not too useful. 
However we will attempt to clarify these points the next time the 
trappers are contacted. 

I do believe, however, that data of this type will have 
much value in assisting us to understand the behaviour of this most 
interesting species. 

VI Winter Movements 

Twenty-five trappers answered the questions pertaining to 
winter travel. Seventeen stated that the caribou did not travel at 
all during the winter. Eight others stated that they did travel 
considerably. These reports of winter travel vary from two miles 
per day to a regular circuit in a 100 mile circle. 

Obviously these movements will vary considerably from one 
area to another and further questioning and field work must be done 
to evaluate the answers given. 

VII Seasonal Movements 

Twenty-two of 23 hunters stated that there were definite 
seasonal movements in the caribou bands which they hunted. Twelve 
of the 20 stated that the movement was a fall and spring phenomenon. 

One trapper stated that he believed cold weather restric- 
ted movements. Two trappers said the herds came together in the 
fall and spread out in the spring into the muskeg. Michel Hunter, 
the chief at Winisk, and a very good hunter, said that the coastal 
caribou move out to the coast in April or March and move back to the 
timber in December depending on early or late freeze up. 

One trapper who was on his trap-line last January when we 
were surveying the area from Fort Severn west to the Manitoba border 
(where considerable summer sign was seen) said that the caribou had 
moved out of that summer area over into the timbered area in Manitoba 

Strangely enough the three hunters who stated there was no 
seasonal movement of caribou were from Pikangikum. It is possible 
that the animals in that area do not need to travel far from summer 
to winter range. (This has been noticed in the Old Caribou Preserve 
and in the Cliff Lake herds). 

This spring when interviewing these trappers we will 
attempt to describe the movements on a map. This might clarify the 
situation. 



- 26 - 

VIII When Were Caribou Most Abundant ? 

Forty hunters answered this question. Thirty-four said 
that they are more abundant right now than they have been. Two said 
30 years ago, two said 40 years ago and one said simply long ago. 
Another said they are as abundant now as they were at their peak 
about 20 years ago. 

Obviously the natives believe caribou are increasing in 
numbers. 

IX Wolf Predation 

All hunters answered the questions pertaining to wolf 
predation. Three of the 43 reported seeing a total of six wolf- 
killed caribou 1, 1, and 4» 

Apparently wolves prey very little on the caribou herds 
in the north. 

S ummary 

(1) Forty-three caribou hunters were contacted in the spring of 1959 
They had killed 143 caribou (75 adult males, 51 adult females, 
11 male calves, and 4 female calves. 

(2) If the sex ratio of the kill is indicative of the sex ratio of 
the herd a possible explanation for the low rate of reproduc- 
tion in woodland caribou might be evident. 

(3) There does not appear to be any selection made on the part of 
the hunter when he encounters more than one caribou in the bush. 
It is possible that the hunters unconsciously select larger 
animals. This would explain the preponderence of males in the 
kill. 

(4) The bulk of the kill is made in the months of November and 
December, and March and April. One possible explanation for 
this is that it is at this time of the year when trappers are 
most actively engaged in the field. Another is that at this 
time of the year caribou exhibit their gregariousness to the 
greatest degree. 

(5) It has been well established that the large stags shed their 
antlers from late November to mid January. 

(6) Most hunters agree that most caribou herds are made up of males 
and females travelling together. 



- 27 - 

Few herds of does and calves were reported but observa- 
tions of herds of stags were more common. 

It is felt that the proximity to rutting season has much 
to do with herd formation and composition. 

(7) Apparently most caribou herds confine themselves to little 
movement during the winter. 

[&) A definite spring and fall movement has been observed in most 

areas inhabited by caribou. Further more intensive questioning 
this summer should reveal the direction and extent of these 
movements. 

(9) It appears that caribou are more plentiful now than they have 
been for 30 or more years throughout Patricia Central and 
Patricia West. 

(10) Wolf predation on caribou appears to be very low, however, when 
a herd is attacked, multiple kills may occur. 

Acknowledgments 

The bulk of the data here reported was gathered by Conserva- 
tion Officers Sayers, Currie, Milko, Stone, and Toews at the spring 
trappers meetings. They are to be commended for questioning the 
Indians as thoroughly as they did. 



£» 



THE DESIRABILITY OF CHEMICAL EVALUATION OF LAKES IN ONTARIO 

by 
R. A, Ryder 



Abstract 



It was felt that chemical analyses of waters in Ontario 
could be utilized to advantage to establish indices 
of lake productivity. Possible methods and costs for 
obtaining such indices are discussed,. The application 
of the chemical analysis of waters as presently success- 
fully employed by Minnesota could be modified to meet 
the needs of the Patricia Inventory with only those 
indices related directly to fish production being 
retained. Water quality as expressed in terms of total 
alkalinity, and water fertility, expressed as total 
phosphorus were believed two of the best indices of 
lake productivity we have today. Once these indices 
are established it would be possible to predict pounds 
per acre sustainable harvest rate of a standing crop 
of fishes provided four other variables are calculated - 
lake morphometry, species composition, length of grow- 
ing season and success of spawning. 



At a recent meeting of the Patricia Inventory Group, the 
suggestion was made that chemical analyses be utilized to establish 
indices of lake productivity in Northern Ontario. Chemical analyses 
of waters have long been neglected in Ontario, and only rarely have 
determinations beyond oxygen concentrations and pH been estimated. 
The value of the latter determination is questionable except that it 
sometimes serves as an undependable indicator of total alkalinity 
or shows the possible existence of pollution. 

In order to better assess the value of chemical water 
analysis as expressed in terms of lake productivity, the author, 
together with Messrs. J. M. Fraser and K. H. Loftus, visited Dr. John 
B. Moyle, Supervisor of the Bureau of Research and Planning of the 
Minnesota Conservation Department. Dr. Moyle has long been recognized 
as one of the leaders in applying chemical analyses of waters to the 
productivity of lakes in terms of fish or waterfowl. It was hoped 
that his methods as expressed in Moyle (1949) and Moyle (1956) could 
be condensed and the most suitable devices applied to the Patricia 
Inventory as found practicable. 

The principal chemical analyses made in Minnesota, aside 
from oxygen concentrations, have been total alkalinity, sulphate ion, 
chloride ion, total phosphorus, and total nitrogen. Total phosphorus 



- 29 - 

was sometimes broken down further and evaluated as organic phosphorus 
and phosphate phosphorus. Total nitrogen was also evaluated for its 
component parts in terms of ammonia nitrogen, nitrate nitrogen, 
nitrite nitrogen, and organic nitrogen. Other elements such as iron 
and manganese occasionally entered into water analyses, but no corre- 
lation has yet been drawn up to demonstrate to what extent they affect 
lake productivity. Water analyses for pH and free carbon dioxide have 
been discontinued in Minnesota routine lake surveys because of the 
extreme and rapid fluctuations of both in a brief period of time and 
in short distances between stations. 

In order to keep the Patricia Inventory on an economical 
and practical basis, only those indices related directly to fish 
production were retained. Analyses for chloride ion and sulphate ion 
will be omitted because the former cannot be correlated as having 
any direct effect on the biology of waters, and the latter had little 
if any value in assessing waters for fish productivity,. Total nitrogen, 
while useful as an index of fish productivity, was eliminated from 
the proposed surveys because the general distribution pattern of 
nitrogen concentrations was similar to those of total phosphorus, and 
total nitrogen determinations were time consuming and consequently 
expensive to make. A rough conversion factor of Is 10 can be employed 
in estimating total nitrogen when total phosphorus is known. This 
relationship varies, but can be applied over a large number of 
samples. 

Application and Methods 

The application of the chemical analysis of waters as 
presently employed by Minnesota would be modified to meet the needs 
of the Patricia Inventory. The Patricias should first be broken down 
into geological units. To begin, a representative lake in each 
geological unit is selected, and one-quart water samples taken from the 
surface of each of these lakes at each two-week interval. It would 
be desirable if several samples could be taken simultaneously from 
the epilimnion of larger lakes, (e.g. Big Trout, Beer), at two-week 
intervals, trying to obtain the samples from different geological 
and ecological units of the lakes. These water samples should be 
immediately preserved at the rate of 12.5 ml. of chloroform per quart 
of water, a label affixed to the outside of the bottle will state 
the name of the lake, the location of the particular station, and the 
date the sample was taken. Oxygen determinations will not be made 
from this water sample, but should be taken from a Kemmerer bottle. 

The water samples can be analyzed on the spot for total 
alkalinity, the remainder being shipped to a laboratory for analysis 
of total phosphorus. At the end of one summer, a minimum standard 
will have been obtained for assessing the fertility of lakes in each 
of the geological units. In future years spot analyses taken in other 
lakes during midsummer, when chemical characteristics are stabilized, 
will fill in the remaining data needed to draw isobars of chemical 
fertility and hence, potential biological productivity. To assess 
individual lakes of their fertility expressed in terms of total 
alkalinity and total phosphorus, it would be desirable to maintain a 
series of samples taken once every two weeks during the course of 



- 30 - 

the summer following the first stratification after spring overturn, 
and continuing until the first signs of fall overturn. Lakes which 
do not stratify should be sampled in accordance with the dynamics of 
neighbouring stratified lakes to obtain uniformity. Once the mean 
water quality and fertility of a lake is expressed in parts per 
million of total alkalinity and total phosphorus, we have established 
a standard which can be compared with other lakes in the area or 
which have been previously described in the literature. 

Correlating the Results 

In order to be useful, chemical water quality and fertility 
expressed in terms of total alkalinity and total phosphorus must be 
correlated with other limitations of biological productivity,. The 
more important of these are as follows" 

1. Chemical fertility. 

2. Morphometry of lake basin. 

3. Length of growing season. 

4. Species composition. 

5. Success of reproduction. 

These five variables can be interrelated to obtain a relative 
productivity in terms of so many pounds of fish per acre of water. 
An even more realistic figure, and one that can be used to compare 
fish productivity on an absolute basis, is the expression of produc- 
tivity in pounds per acre foot of water. On lakes where an intensive 
population study has been made, chemical productivity can give an 
absolute correlation when compared with the standing crop of fish 
present, and hence, quotas to regulate the fishery can be established 
on a firmer basis than previously. 

The morphometry of the lake basin will be arrived at through 
the use of echo sounders and used as an additional index of fish 
production (Rounsefel, 19A-6) and (Rawson, 1952) . In general, the 
relationship between lake morphometry and chemical productivity is 
cause and effect. Deeper lakes generally possess less littoral zone, 
have a harder and less soluble substratum, ai.d have less substratum 
surface area per unit of water. 

The length of the growing season will certainly affect the 
productivity of lakes for certain fish species. The growing season 
can be assessed by a study of the limnology and hydrography of the 
lake and by a study of annulus formations on fish scales. It is 
expected that the length of the growing season can be expressed as 
a coefficient which in turn will modify the value of the chemical 
fertility. 

Species composition of any given lake, both qualitative and 
quantitative, is a necessary item which must be assessed before any 
prediction as to production can be made, based on chemical fertility. 
This information is obtained through standardized net sets and a study 
of catch per unit effort from the same. 






- 31 - 

Success of reproduction might be an important factor in 
limiting fish populations in northern areas, especially if the 
growing season is short. Commercial fisheries could reduce populations 
of fish until they become dependent entirely on one year class for 
their annual harvest. A failure of a year class because spawning 
occurs only once every two years or because of some climatic factor, 
could be catastrophic to the fishery. Ability of fish species to 
reproduce successfully each year will have to be assessed and the 
result used to weigh any productivity index which might have been 
predetermined. 

Techniques 

Techniques for water analysis can be found in Dobie and 
Moyle (1956), Moyie and Burrows (1954), and American Public Health 
Association (1936). 

Total alkalinity can be measured in parts per million 
calcium carbonate using either the methyl orange or the brom cresol 
green methods. The latter method provides a sharper end point for 
titration and is generally preferred. In most instances total alka- 
linity can be determined in the field. 

Total phosphorus determinations are more difficult and 
should take place in a laboratory. The final determination can use 
either a colorimeter or a spectrophotometer. The latter instrument 
is rather expensive, but is more than justified by the accurate 
results obtained and the saving of a good deal of time which is 
otherwise used up in the preparation of colour standards for each 
analysis using a colorimeter. 

Costs 

In Minnesota, one graduate chemist is maintained full time 
to do all water chemical analyses, soil chemical analyses, flesh 
composition analyses, and other chemical determinations. This chemist 
is able to keep abreast of all the lake and pond surveys conducted 
in the State each year as well as conduct additional work in chemistry 
where required. The laboratory in Minnesota was originally equipped 
for a total of ^3*500.00 and requires about 'ji>7>000.00 per year to pay 
the wages of the chemist and supply additional equipment and reagents. 
In their laboratory are included several expensive items such as a 
spectrophotometer, a Kjeldahl still, a Kesslerizer, a distilled water 
still, a centrifuge, and a digestor. For total phosphorus determina- 
tions, some of the above items are not required, and others can be 
substituted with cheaper apparatus. We would recommend that at least 
a spectrophotometer, a distilled water still, and a suitable digestor 
be purchased. All this equipment, plus required glassware, could be 
purchased for well under $1, 500.00. A graduate chemist would not be 
required, but only a capable technician working part-time on water 
analyses. The total outlay, providing a suitable lab was available, 
would not amount to more than .» : 3 ,000.00 the first year. If these 



- 32 - 

techniques were extended on a province-wide basis, hiring of a full- 
time chemist or technician would probably be justified. Once 
established, maintenance of the laboratory would be reasonable, the 
wages of the chemist or technician each year being the one expensive 
item. 

Conclusions 

Water quality, as expressed in terms of total alkalinity, 
and water fertility, expressed as total phosphorus, are two of the 
best indices of lake productivity we have today. Knowing these two 
indices, we can predict pounds per acre sustainable harvest rate of 
a standing crop of fishes. The relationship of total phosphorus 
to production in terms of fish approaches a straight line, that of 
total alkalinity, a parabolic curve. Once these indices are establi- 
shed, predictions may be made regarding productivity in terms of 
fishes, providing the four other previously mentioned variables are 
calculated - lake morphometry, species composition, length of growing 
season, and success of spawning. These latter variables are usually 
obtained, at least in part, during routine lake surveys. The addi- 
tional water sample required gives a large return for the small addi- 
tional effort. It seems imperative that we do not neglect these 
techniques in our evaluation of lakes in Ontario. In Minnesota they 
have settled on this system only after more than fifteen years of 
lake surveys using organized survey crews and various techniques. 
The method has stood the test of time and realizing its limitations 
can procure for us the greatest amount of knowledge pertaining to the 
fish productivity of a lake, for the least amount of effort expended. 






- 33 - 

Literature Cited 

American Public Health Association. 1936. 

Standard methods for the examination of water and sewage. 
£th edition, XIV plus 309 pp., New York. 

Dobie, John and John Moyle. 1956. 

Methods used for investigating productivity of fish-rearing 

ponds in Minnesota. 

Minn. Fish. Res. Unit Special Publ. No. 5, 54 pp. 

Moyle, John B. 1949. 

Some indices of lake productivity. 
Trans. Am. Fish. Soc, 76 (1946) ;322-334. 

. 1946. 



Relationship between the chemistry of Minnesota surface waters 

and wildlife management. 

Jour. Wildl. Mgmt., 20 (1956) 3:303-320. 

, and Charles R. Burrows. 1954. 



Manual of lake survey instructions. 

Minn. Fish. Res. Unit Special Publ. No. 1. 70 pp. 

Rawson, D. S. 1952. 

Mean depth and fish production of large lakes. 
Ecol. 33s 513-521. 

Rounsefel, G. A. 1946. 

Fish production in lakes as a guide for estimating production 
in proposed reservoirs. Copeia, 1946 (l):29-40. 



■ - 34 - 
WINTER FISHING FOR SPECKLED TROUT IN THE NORTHERN REGION 

DURING WINTER OF 19 5$ 

by 
N,. D. Patrick 



Abstract 

The objective of this project was to establish a short- 
term experimental winter fishery for speckled trout in 
lakes where they do not reproduce in order to assess 
the effectiveness of winter angling as a management 
tool. Twelve "non-reproducing" speckled trout lakes 
were opened to angling on an experimental basis during 
the period January 1st to April 30, 195$, From creel 
census data obtained estimates were made of total 
fishing effort and total harvest, It was found that 
the winter angling did not result in an undue harvest 
of trout. Angling success was generally poor although 
several of the lakes had good populations of trout f 
The results indicated that winter angling for speckled 
trout in lakes where they do not reproduce should be 
given full consideration as a management method. 



This project is in reality a Regional Project for the 
Northern Region and was prepared and carried out as directed by the 
Northern Region Fish and Wildlife Committee. It has been written up 
as a Swastika Project since the terms of reference of the Regional 
Committee have been altered. Much of the work carried out in the 
project was done by Cochrane District staff, and it was the Conserva- 
tion Officers of both Districts who collected the data involved. 

During the development of the Regional Fish Management 
Programme in 1956 and 1957; the problem of properly managing non- 
reproducing pot-hole speckled trout lakes was discussedo Since this 
type of water is entirely dependant on hatchery plantings., the closed 
season restrictions seem to have little function, and any means of 
increasing the return of planted fish to the anglers creel is worth 
investigation. 

Many persons, including our own staff, have long felt that 
winter angling for this species was disastrous, and often poor summer 
angling has been blamed on the illegal activities of one or two 
parties fishing the lake in the winter. This project was prepared 
to provide more information on winter angling for speckled trout. 

Objective s' 

To establish a short-term experimental winter fishery for 
speckled trout in lakes where they do not reproduce in order to assess 
the effectiveness of winter angling as a management tool. 



- 35 - 



Methods 



A series of 12 "non-reproducing" speckled trout lakes were 
opened to angling on an experimental basis during the period January 
1st to April 30th, 195$. During the time these lakes were open, 
creel census data were obtained for the various days of the week 
during the four months the lakes were open. From these data, estima- 
tes of total fishing effort and total harvest were made. 

O bservations ; 

The twelve lakes opened are listed in Table I. Unfortunately, 
the creel census data* collected have definite limitations, but they 
are adequate to demonstrate the effectiveness of winter angling in 
the lakes in question. Table I shows estimates of fishing pressure 
and harvest based on the data collected, and it can be seen that even 
the best lake (Fisher Lake in German Township) produced less than 
one fish per fishing trip. The project provided an estimated minimum 
number of 3>174 fishing trips, and although there were some men who 
made many trips, there were probably close to 1,000 persons involved. 

TABLE I - Creel Census Data For Speckled Trout Lakes Open 
To Angling, January 1st to April 30th, 195$. 



Lake 



Wilson 

Jordan 

Andrew 

Fraser 

Horseshoe 

Horseshoe 

Blue 

Green 

Wiskin 

Devil ? s Punch Bowl 

Fisher 

West Twin 



TOTAL 



TOTAL LESS FISHER LAKE 





Estimated 


Est. 


Est. 


Number 




Total 


Catch 


Catch 


of 




Fishing 


Speckled 


Lake 


Trips/ 


Township 


Trips 


Trout 
17 


Trout 



Fish 


Lebel ) 


142 


8.4 


Lebel ) 










McCann 


133 


65 





2.8 


Willi son 


97 


13 





7.5 


Dundonald 


313 


145 


8 


2.0 


Mount joy 


172** 


$ 


4 


14.3 


Clute 


410*** 


85 


20 


3.9 


Colquhoun 


397*** 


106 





3.7 


Colquhoun 


73 


15 





4.9 


Calvert 


492 


167 





2.9 


German 


$95 


649 


2 


1.4 


German 


- 


- 


- 


- 




3174 
2279 


1270 


34 
32 


2.4 




621 


3.5 



** These are actual creel data obtained - data were not adequate 
for estimate. 

*** Estimate for all but month of February for these lakes. February 
data entered as actual creel obtained. 



This was the first time field officers had done this type of work, 
and the data collected were good under the circumstances. 



- 36 - 

Very little comparable creel census data are available for 
the period following May 1st, but they seem to indicate that two of 
the lakes at least showed an improvement after the winter angling 
effort. In Andrew Lake, 37 trips produced 32 fish, while in Fraser 
Lake, four trips produced one fish. In Jordan and Wilson Lakes on 
the other hand, 44 trips produced only two fish. It should be pointed 
out that Wilson, Jordan, Andrew and Fraser Lakes were selected because 
they were known to produce poor fishing during the regular open sea- 
sons although lake surveys indicated reasonable populations of trout 
were available in them. 

Conclusion s 

It is obvious that the winter angling carried out during 
January - April, 195$, did not result in an undue harvest of trout. 
Angling success was poor in all the lakes, although several of them 
(Blue, Green and Wiskin for example) are excellent waters with good 
populations of trout. The results of this project most certainly 
indicate that winter angling for speckled trout in lakes where they 
do not reproduce should be given full consideration as a management 
method. 









- 37 - 



CREEL CENSUS - GOGAMA DISTRICT, 1959 

by 
Jo E. Culliton 



Abstract 

Improvements in the method of collecting creel census 
returns in Gogama District resulted in more accurate 
tabulation of numbers and species of fish taken by- 
anglers in 1959* Returns are listed by main watershed 
areas in order to attain a more simplified and general 
picture of fishing success. Three methods of obtaining 
an analysis of fish caught are discussed. Detailed 
tables giving a complete analysis for the Yellow 
Pickerel, the most widely fished species in the district, 
are presented. Data show that 1,012 anglers fished a 
total of 9,535 hours to catch 4,957 pickerel or each 
angler caught an average of 4«$9 fisho In general, 
fewer anglers fished more hours to catch fewer fish in 
1959 as compared with 195$. Summaries condensing the 
angling returns for Northern Pike, Speckled Trout, Lake 
Trout and Kamloops Trout are also given „ 



Creel census records were once again activated in the Gogama 
District during the 1959 fishing season. 

Improvements made in the creel census record return slip 
resulted this year in more accurate tabulation of numbers and species 
of fish taken by anglers. It is apparent however, that more improve- 
ments will have to be realized before highly accurate levels of 
records can be compiled. 

Rather than tabulate individual information on all the various 
small, interconnected lakes and streams in the district, it has been 
successfully attempted to break the returns down and form an overall 
picture of the main watershed areas. In doing this, a more simplified 
and general report on the fishing success of the district can be seen. 

Some major difficulties hindering accurate analysis presented 
themselves as the Creel Census Report was embarked upon. One item 
which introduces distortion of the returns, is simultaneous angling 
for two or more species of fish by a party. We have attempted to 
rectify this and arrive at a base for our calculations by the following 
simple method; 

(a) Where a party is fishing for Pickerel and Pike simultaneously; 
Where a party of two anglers fished three hours and caught 12 



- 3^ - 

pickerel and six pike, we have considered the party to have been fishing 
their total man hours for both species, rather than for one in pre- 
ference to another. Therefore, in this instance the party caught 12 
pickerel with a total of six man hours (or two pickerel per man hour)' 
and caught six pike with a total of six man hours, (or one pike per 
man hour). This is not, as first appearances indicate, doubling up 
on the hours, but merely the application of the hours fished directly 
to each species. 

(b) For those parties who recorded no catch of either species in 
pickerel and pike waters, it was assumed that they were fishing for 
pike and pickerel simultaneously, and their hours were applied as in 
(a) . 

W eather Conditions 

The weather throughout the 1959 fishing season was judged 
to be generally better than the previous year. May provided us with 
cool weather until around the lSth, at which point warm weather pre- 
vailed into June. June was generally warm with average rainfall 
persisting, July was cooler at the start than late June, but warmed 
up towards the end. August was our dampest month, starting out warm 
and dry, but wetting the district well before retiring into September. 
An average of 4.41 inches of rainfall fell in the district during 
August, the bulk of it at Gogama and Elsas, leaving Foleyet area 
relatively dry. Early September was warm but following the 10th, cool 
and wet weather prevailed, snow falling in Foleyet on the 15th. 

Table I deals exclusively with the Yellow Pickerel or 
Yellow Walleye, ( Stizostedion vitreum ) which is the prize of many 
anglers. The summary of pickerel 1959 (Table I (e)) draws some 
interesting conclusions. We see that 1,012 anglers fished a total of 
9.535 hours to catch 4,957 pickerel. This gives each angler an 
average of 4«&9 fish, which is .31 fish per angler higher than last 
years record indicates. Our seasonal average of .93 fish per man 
hour is slightly lower than the average of 1.00 recorded last year. 
In general, fewer anglers fished more hours to catch fewer fish in 
1959 as compared with 1958. 

Table I (a) breaks the overall picture down to the indivi- 
dual waterways, and once again some interesting totals can be observed 
regarding the number of fish released as opposed to those retained. 

It is noteworthy to compare, at this point, the various 
species in the report, observing the differences in the ratio of fish 
released to fish retained for each species. Looking at pickerel and 
pike, it is seen that more pickerel were kept per total fish caught 
than in the pike records. The Speckled Trout and Lake Trout tables 
indicate that these species were retained except where size rendered 
them useless as food. The Lake Trout totals indicate that 100$ of 
the fish caught were retained. This leads to substantiate the opinion 
that although Northern Pike are desirable as a game fish, they are 
generally not retained for food purposes by those parties who fish 
pickerel and pike simultaneously. 



- 39 - 

Table I (b) breaks the hours fished for pickerel down, and 
renders an accurate seasonal account of fishing pressure in man hours 
per month. 

Table 1 (c) analyzes the total pickerel caught during the 
fishing season, indicating the months of highest catch. A point of 
note here is that the month of highest catch (2455 pickerel in June) 
was one of our good weather months with average rainfall for that time 
of year. 

Table I (d) once again gives us a good idea of fishing 
pressure by offering a monthly breakdown of anglers. This table too, 
serves to indicate clearly the lakes in the district that are fished 
the heaviest. Minisinakwa Lake, with a total of 213 pickerel anglers 
recorded for the season leads the other lakes. This, of course is 
because it is in juxtaposition with Gogama, and many resident fisher- 
men without automobiles utilize the proximity of good fishing waters. 

Tables II, III, IV and V deal with Pike, Speckled Trout, 
Lake Trout and Kamloops Trout respectively. These tables are all 
broken down to sub-tables and follow in structure the description of 
the Pickerel, Table I. 

As Ketchiwaboose Lake is the only lake in the District where 
the Kamloops Trout is known to abound, we have not endeavoured to 
draw any conclusions as to fishing pressure etc. Table V will supply 
all the information required re this species for this report and, 
at a future date more complete data can be compiled. 

Summary 

At the onset of this report, it was our hope that a good 
cross-sectional picture of fish harvested by anglers in the district 
could be obtained. Unfortunately however, another difficulty was 
encountered as the work progressed. 

On some of our lakes, (because of the receipt of increased 
number of creel census returns) we have a better picture of fish 
harvested,, On the other hand we have waterways in which anglers were 
present but for which little or no records have been submitted. This 
appears to leave three alternative methods of obtaining an analysis 
of fish removed? 

(a) Base the final figure only on the lakes from which large quantities 
of returns were obtained. 

(b) Take into consideration all the lakes for which we have records, 
including the lakes for which returns indicate no fish caught, 
(although fish are known to be present). 

(c) Mathematical analysis utilizing our most accurate records and 
using the method of interpolation. 



- 40 - 

The most accurate and highly desirable of the above would 
be (c). In this method, areas of lakes could be taksn into account 
and a figure of fish harvested derived per area unit. This figure, 
combined with its area unit, could then be applied to the other 
waterways in the district, and a final figure thus obtained.. This 
system could be attempted at a future date when the necessary informa- 
tion on our lake areas is compiled by the Lake Survey Program. 

The method described in (a) will not, of course, give us 
either as accurate or as general a figure as is desired. 

For the present report it has been deemed sufficient that 
the second alternative, (b) be used, and from this basis our tables 
have been totalled. 















-CI- 



TABLE I (a) - Yellow Pickerel ( Stizostedion vitreum) 





























No. 




No. 


No . 




No. 


No, 


Pickerel 




Fish 


Fish 




of 


of 


Per 




Re- 


Re- 


Total 


Ang- 


Man 


Man 


Name of Lake 


leased 
172 


tained 
331 


Caught 
503 


lers 

117 


Hours 
732 


Hour 


Matt again i L, 


,70 


Minisinakwa L. 


213 


490 


703 


213 


615 


1.14 


Mesomikenda L. 


652 


360 


1012 


155 


5027 


.20 


Grassy River 


114 


207 


321 


80 


436 


.66 


Okawakenda L, 


620 


237 


857 


80 


408 


2.10 


Ilichiwakenda L e 


10 


68 


78 


26 


319 


.24 


Ivanhoe L 


28 


63 


111 


31 


341 


.32 


Horwood L„ 


42 


110 


152 


27 


192 


.79 


Upper Kenotogami L. 





10 


10 


5 


10 


1.00 


Groundhog L. 





97 


97 


31 


13 5 


.71 


Sinclair L. 


42 


43 


85 


32 


210 


.40 


Kapiskong L 


121 


56 


177 


35 


172 


1.00 


Kapuskasing L, 





91 


91 


34 


54 


1.66 


Wasapika L« 


3 


32 


35 


9 


39 


.89 


Bonar L. 





4 


4 


4 


16 


.25 


Chris L. 


11 


30 


41 


9 


45 


.m 


Dumbell L. 


5 


8 


13 


4 


8 


1.62 


Groundhog River 





17 


17 


5 


23 


.73 


Loonwing L a 


11 


29 


40 


12 


76 


.52 


Stetham L. 


8 


20 


28 


12 


54 


.52 


Nemagosenda L„ 





33 


33 


21 


36 


.89 


Saville L. 


14 


27 


41 


5 


25 


I.64 


Shinners L. 


150 


121 


271 


5 


160 


1.63 


Mound L. 





32 


32 


15 


81 


.39 


Somrae L« 


50 


3 


53 


2 


28 


1.89 


Claw River 


5 


12 


17 


2 


1 

'4 


4.22 


White Duck L. 





15 


15 


4 


20 


.75 


Scorch L. 





8 


8 


2 


10 


.m 


Nabakwasi River 





6 


f> 


4 


20 


.30 


Singed Tree L. 





4 


4 


3 


12 


.33 


Kenogamissi L. 


15 


8 


23 


2 


12 


1.91 


Blair L, 





12 


12 


2 


12 


1.00 


Makami River 





21 


21 


k 


10 


2.10 


rris Lake 


9 


9 


18 


Q 

y 


46 


.39 


Shoofly L. 





4 


4 


7 


29 


.13 


Kasaway L c 





12 


12 


2 


60 


.20 


Nursey L. 





12 


12 


2 


8 


1,50 


TOTAL 


2315 


2642 


4957 


1012 


9535 


34.40 



- 42 - 
TABLE I (b) - Pickerel Man Hours 1959 Season 





May 












Name of Lake Or Stream 


June 


July 


August 


Sept. 


Totals 


Linisinakwa Lake 


154 


201 


99 


161 


_ 


615 


Mattagami Lake 


51 


182 


2 53 


246 


- 


732 


Iiesomikenda Lake 


114 


3207 


1073 


596 


32 


5027 


Grassy River 


- 


217 


229 


- 


40 


436 


Okawakenda Lake 


g 


133 


130 


73 


54 


403 


kichiwakenda Lake 


2 59 


30 


13 


- 


12 


319 


Ivanhoe Lake 


4 


273 


36 


16 


12 


341 


Horwood Lake 


30 


43 


114 


- 


- 


192 


Upper Kenotogami Lake 


- 


10 


- 


- 


- 


10 


Groundhog Lake 


43 


15 


- 


72 


- 


13 5 


Kapiskong Lake 


- 


123 


44 


- 


- 


172 


Sinclair Lake 


75 


24 


95 


16 


- 


210 


Kapuskasing Lake 


25 


29 


- 


- 


- 


54 


Wasapika Lake 


- 


- 


- 


IB 


21 


39 


Bonar Lake 


- 


- 


16 


— 


— 


16 


Chris Lake 


- 


- 


- 


- 


45 


45 


Dumbell Lake 


3 


5 


- 


- 


- 


3 


Groundhog River 


- 


22 


1 


- 


- 


23 


Loonwing Lake 


16 


60 


- 


- 


- 


76 


Stetham Lake 


- 


- 


54 


- 


- 


54 


Nemagosenda Lake 


- 


22 


14 


- 


- 


36 


Saville Lake 


- 


— 


25 


- 


- 


25 


Shinners Lake 


- 


160 


- 


- 


- 


160 


Mound Lake 


- 


73 


3 


- 


- 


31 


Sornrae Lake 


- 




- 


28 


- 


23 


Claw River 


4 


- 


- 


- 


- 


4 


White Duck Lr.ke 


- 


20 


- 


- 


- 


20 


Scorch Lake 


10 


- 


- 


- 


— 


10 


Nabakwasi River 


20 


- 


- 


- 


- 


20 


Singed Tree Lake 


12 


- 


- 


- 


- 


12 


Kenogamissi Lake 


— 


12 


- 


- 


- 


12 


Blair Lake 


12 


- 


- 


- 


— 


12 


Makami River 


- 


- 


10 


- 


- 


10 


Ferris Lake 


- 


4 


42 


- 


- 


46 


Shoofly Lake 


9 


20 


- 


- 


— 


29 


Kasaway Lake 


- 


60 


- 


- 


— 


60 


Nursey Lake 


354 


- 


8 


- 


- 


3 


Totals 


4960 


2274 


1231 


216 


9535 



- 43 - 



TABLE I (c) - Pickerel Caught 1959 Season 





May 






August 






Name of Lake Or Stream 


June 


July 


Sept o 


Totals 


Kinisinakwa Lake 


17fi 


368 


68 


89 


M 


703 


Mattagarni Lake 


3S 


196 


127 


142 


- 


503 


I.esomikenda Lake 


90 


539 


244 


115 


24 


1012 


Grassy River 


- 


180 


125 


- 


16 


321 


Okawakenda Lake 


78 


3 S3 


216 


160 


20 


857 


Michiwakenda Lake 


49 


8 


16 


- 


5 


78 


Ivanhoe Lake 


8 


97 


4 


2 


- 


111 


Korwood Lake 


39 


76 


37 


- 


- 


152 


Upper Kenotogami Lake 


- 


10 


- 


- 


- 


10 


Groundhog Lake 


20 


2 


- 


75 


- 


97 


Kapiskong Lake 


- 


135 


42 


- 


- 


177 


Sinclair Lake 


10 


1 


70 


4 


- 


85 


Kapuskasing Lake 


74 


17 


- 


- 


- 


91 


Wasapika Lake 


- 


- 


- 


21 


14 


35 


Bonar Lake 


- 


- 


4 


- 


_ 


4 


Chris Lake 


- 


- 


- 


- 


41 


41 


Dumbell Lake 


3 


10 


- 


- 


- 


13 


Groundhog River 


- 


12 


5 


- 


- 


17 


Loonwing Lake 


7 


33 


- 


- 


- 


40 


Stetham Lake 


- 


- 


28 


- 


- 


28 


Nemagosenda Lake 


- 


31 


2 


- 


- 


33 


Saville Lake 


- 


- 


41 


- 


- 


41 


Shinners Lake 


- 


271 


- 


- 


- 


271 


Mound Lake 


- 


31 


1 


- 


- 


32 


Somme Lake 


- 


- 


- 


53 


- 


53 


Claw River 


17 


- 


- 


- 


- 


17 


White Duck Lake 


- 


15 


- 


- 


- 


15 


Scorch Lake 


8 


- 


- 


- 


- 


8 


Nabakwasi River 


6 


- 


- 


- 


- 


6 


Singed Tree Lake 


4 


- 


- 


- 


- 


4 


Kenogamissi Lake 


- 


23 


- 


- 


- 


23 


Blair Lake 


12 


- 


- 


- 


- 


12 


Makami River 


- 


- 


21 


- 


- 


21 


Ferris Lake 


- 


3 


15 


- 


- 


18 


Shoofly Lake 


2 


2 


- 


- 


- 


4 


Kasaway Lake 


- 


12 


- 


- 


- 


12 


Nursey Lake 


643 


- 


12 
1078 


- 


- 


12 


Totals 


2455 


661 


120 


4957 



- 44 - 

TABLE I (d) - Pickerel Anglers 1959 Season 



Name of Lake Or Stream 

Minisinakwa Lake 
Mattagami Lake 
Mesomikenda Lake 
Grassy River 
Okawakenda Lake 
Michiwakenda Lake 
Ivanhoe Lake 
Horwood Lake 
Upper Kenotogami Lake 
Groundhog Lake 
Kapiskong Lake 
Sinclair Lake 
Kapuskasing Lake 
Wasapika Lake 
Bonar Lake 
Chris Lake 
Dumb ell Lake 
Groundhog River 
Loonwing Lake 
Stetham Lake 
Nemagosenda Lake 
Saville Lake 
Sinnners Lake 
Mound Lake 
Somme Lake 
Claw River 
White Duck Lake 
Scorch Lake 
Nabakwasi River 
Singed Tree Lake 
Kenogamissi Lake 
Blair Lake 
Makami River 
Ferris Lake 
Shoofly Lake 
Kasaway Lake 
Nursey Lake 

Totals 



May 


June 


July 
32 


August 
51 


Sept. 


Totals 


53 


77 


213 


15 


50 


31 


21 


- 


217 


20 


50 


56 


25 


4 


155 


- 


31 


45 


- 


4 


m 


2 


31 


24 


11 


12 


m 


11 


7 


5 


- 


3 


26 


4 


15 


5 


4 


3 


31 


7 


9 


11 


- 


- 


27 


- 


5 


- 


- 


- 


5 


8 


3 


- 


20 


- 


31 


- 


23 


12 


- 


- 


35 


7 


17 


4 


4 


- 


32 


22 


12 


- 


- 


- 


34 


- 


- 


- 


- 


5 


9 


- 


- 


4 


- 


- 


4 


- 


- 


- 


- 


9 


9 


2 


2 


mm 


— 


- 


4 


- 


4 


1 


- 


- 


5 


3 


9 


- 


- 


- 


12 


— 


- 


12 


- 


- 


12 


- 


14 


7 


- 


- 


21 


- 


- 


5 


- 


- 


5 


- 


5 


- 


- 


- 


5 


- 


13 


2 


- 


- 


15 


- 


- 


- 


2 


- 


2 


2 


- 


- 


- 


- 


2 


- 


4 


- 


- 


- 


4 


2 


- 


- 


— 


— 


2 


4 


- 


- 


- 


- 


4 


3 


- 


- 


- 


- 


3 


- 


2 


- 


- 


- 


2 


2 


- 


- 


- 


- 


2 


- 


- 


4 


- 


- 


4 


- 


2 


7 


- 


- 


9 


3 


4 


- 


- 


- 


7 


- 


2 


- 


M 


- 


2 


- 


- 


2 


" 


- 


2 


170 


391 


269 


142 


40 


1012 



- 45 - 

TABLE I (e) - Summary of Pickerel Angling 1959 Season . 

(1) Total number of man hours spent . .. . 9535 

(2) Total number of pickerel caught per man hour .52 

(3) Average number of pickerel caught per man hour .93 

(4) Number of pickerel caught per 100 hours angling 52 

(5) Total number of pickerel released 2315 

(6j Total number of pickerel retained ••••• 2642 

(7) Total number of pickerel caught • •••• 4957 

($) Total number of pickerel anglers •••••••« 1012 

(9) Average number of pickerel per angler • • 4«$9 

TABLE II - Summary of Northern Pike Angling 1959 Season * 

(1) Total number of man hours fished by pike anglers 7206 

2) Total number of pike per man hour .22 

(3) Average number of pike per man hour .62 

(4J Number of pike per 100 hours fished by anglers 22 

(5) Total number of pike released 1011 

(6) Total number of pike retained 540 

(7) Total number of pike caught by anglers 1551 

(£) Total number of anglers 721 

(9) Average number of pike per angler ••••• 2.14 



* Lengthy tables concerning various lakes were included in the 
original report. 

TABLE III - Summary of Speckled Trout Angling 1959 Season 

(1) Total number of hours fished by speckled trout anglers .. 39#2 

(2) Total number of speckled trout per man hour ..... ...... . .12 

(3| Average number of Speckled Trout per man hour .69 

(4) Number of Speckled Trout caught per 100 hours of angling. 12 

( 5 Total number of Speckled Trout released 40 

(6) Total number of Speckled Trout retained • 419 

(7) Total number of Speckled Trout caught by anglers 459 

(8) Total number of Speckled Trout anglers 1#9 

(9) Average number of Speckled Trout per angler • 2.43 



- 46 - 
TABLE IV - Summary of Lake Trout Angling 1959 Season , 

(1) Total number of hours fished by Lake Trout Anglers 646 

(2) Total number of Lake Trout per man hour •••••••« .17 

(3) Average number of Lake Trout per man hour B ... .19 

(4) Number of Lake Trout caught per 100 hours of angling .... .17 

(5) Total number of Lake Trout released ............ ........ . 

(6) Total number of Lake Trout retained 110 

(7) Total number of Lake Trout caught 110 

($) Total number of Lake Trout anglers 54 

(9) Average number of Lake Trout per angler 2.04 

TABLE V - Kamloops Trout 

Ketchiwaboose Lakes 



No. Fish No. Fish Total Fish No. of No. of No. of Kamloops 
Released Retained Caught Anglers Man Hrs. Trout Per Man Hr. 

57 55 112 19 219 .51 



Fishing Pressure By Man Hours? 



May June July August Total 



Number of man hours IS lg 4$ 13 5 219 



Fishing Pressure By Number of Anglers: 



May June July 

Number of anglers 2 3 5 



Fish Harvested Per Month: 




May June July August Total 
Number of fish caught 12 21 49 30 112 



N. B. This lake is the only lake in the District where the Kamloops 
Trout is known to abound. 



- 47 - 

INDEX TO 
FISH AND WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT REPORTS 
July, 1951 to February, I960 
NUMBERS 1 TO 50 

BIRDS 

Annotated List of Birds Seen On the Asheweig River, 1950, C. A. Elsey, 

No. 23, June 1, 1955. 
Annotated List of Birds Seen at Kasabonika Lake, May 27th-June 5th, 

1953, A. T. Cringan, No. 24, Aug. 1, 1955. 
Birds, Mammals and Fish of Extreme Northwestern Ontario, Notes On, 

J. A. Macfie, No. 16, Apr. 1, 1954. 
Birds, Mammals and Fishes of Extreme North-western Ontario, Additional 

Notes On, J. A. Macfie, No. 40, Apr. 1, 1958. 
Birds Observed At Big Island, Lake of the Woods, Jan. 22-Feb. 8, 1953 , 

A. T. Cringan, No. 31, Oct. 1, 1956. 
Botulism Research At Normandale Bird Farm, S. W. Mound, No. 26, Dec. 

1, 1955. 
Brant In Tweed District, 1953, H. G. Lumsden, No. 19, Oct., 1954. 
Brant Migration, Summary of Fall, Thomas W. Barry, No. 3 5, June 1, 

1957. 
Canada Goose Kills By the Indians of Northern Ontario, An Evaluation 

Of, Harold C. Hanson & Campbell Currie, No. 32, Dec. 1, 1956. 
Check of Duck Hunters In Rondeau Park, Oct. 2, 1954, R. A. McLaren, 

No. 22, Apr. 1, 1955. 
Duck Banding At Toronto Island, 1954, W. J. Douglas Stephen, No. 20, 

Dec. 1, 1954. 
Duck Banding, Toronto Island, 1955, W. J. D. Stephen & John Goddard, 

No. 26, Dec. 1, 1955. 
Duck Banding - Gogama District, 1959, J. E. Culliton, No. 50, Feb., 

I960. 
Duck Census and Brood Count, 1957, Kenora District, V. Macins, No. 38, 

Dec. 1, 1957. 
Duck and Grouse Brood Counts from the Districts of Chapleau, Geraldton, 

Sioux Lookout, Fort Frances and Port Arthur, A. de Vos, 

No. 10, Mar. 1, 1953. 
Duck Habitat Improvement Survey, Preliminary Report, J. K. Shields, 

No. 28, Apr. 1, 1956. 
Duck Hunting In the Lake Erie District, L„ J. Stock, No. 33, Feb. 1, 

1957. 
Duck Hunting Season Report On Opening Day 1959 At Holland Marsh, 

R. H. Trotter & A. A. Wainio, No. 49, Nov. 1, 1959. 
Duck Nesting Baskets, G. F. Boyer, No. 41, June 1, 1958. 
Ducks Caught In Muskrat Traps, Quint e District, H. G. Lumsden, No. 2, 

Nov., 1951. 
Exotic Birds, C. H. D. Clarke, No. 17, June 1, 1954. 
Experiment In Scaring Starlings By Sound At Buffalo, New York, A. H. 

Berst, No. 20, Dec. 1, 1954. 
Further Report on the Scaring of Starlings by Sound at Buffalo, New 

York, John F. Hagerty, No. 22, Apr. 1, 1955. 
Goose Survey - Bear Head Lake, Sept. 10-26, 1958, R. Malloch, No. 46, 

May, 1959. 
Ground Cover and Winter Feeding, H. P. Nicholson, No. 18, Aug., 1954. 



- k& - 

Grouse In the Gogama District, 1958, George Vozeh, No. 45, Mar., 1959. 
Grouse On Manitoulin Island, H. G. Lumsden, No. 7, Octo, 1952c 
Grouse Report Sharp-tail, Fort Frances District, Winter and Spring, 

1959, J. Farr, No. 49, Nov., 1959. 
Grouse Season Fort Frances District, Report On the 1958, J. A. Farr, 

No. 45, Mar., 1959. 
Grouse Stocking on Cockburn Island, Harold McQuarrie, No. 4, June, 

1952. 
Hungarian Partridge Report, District of Rideau, N. D. Patrick, No. 13, 

Sept., 1953. 
Hungarian Partridges, H. G. Lumsden, No. 5, Aug., 1952. 
Hungarian Partridges in the New Liskeard Farming District, Feb., 1955, 

Survey of, W. L. Sleeman, No. 24, Aug., 1955* 
Hungarian Shoot, 1951, N. D. Patrick, No. 3, Apr., 1952. 
Hybrid Goose In Prince Edward County, H. G. Lumsden, No. 17, June, 1954. 
James Bay Report, 1957, G. F. Boyer, No. 40, Apr., 1958. 
Luther Marsh Game Bag Census, 1954, J. F. Gage & W. H. Cantelon, No. 

22, Apr., 1955. 
Luther Marsh Game Bag Census, Oct. 6, 1956, J. F. Gage, No. 32, 

Dec, 1956. 
Luther Marsh Game Bag Census Report, Oct. 5, 1957, J. F. Gage, No. 

38, Dec, 1957. 
Luther Marsh Game Bag Census, Oct. 4, 1958, R» T ^« Hummel & T. M. 

Nicholl, No. 44, Dec, 1958. 
Luther Marsh Game Bag Census, Oct. 3, 1959, R. E. Mason, No. 49, Nov., 

1959. 
Luther Marsh, Ontario, An Investigation of, J. H. Day, No. 28, Apr., 

1956. 
Luther Marsh Waterfowl Census for Oct. 1st, 1955, W. H. Cantelon, 

No. 27, Feb., 1956. 
Mid-winter Waterfowl Inventory, 1954, H. 0. Lumsden, No. 20, Dec, 1954. 
Mid-winter Waterfowl Inventory, 1955, H. G. Lumsden, No. 23, June, 1955. 
Midwinter Waterfowl Inventory for Ontario, 1957, George M, Stirrett, 

No. 3 5, June, 1957*. 
Midwinter Inventory for Ontario, 1958, C. F. Boyer, No. 40, Apr., 1958. 
Mid-winter Waterfowl Inventory, Ont., 1959, G. F. Boyer, No. 48, Sept., 

1959. 
Mourning Dove Road Counts, L. J. Stock, No. 32, Dec, 1956. 
Mourning Dove Road Count, Lake Erie District, 1957, L. J Stock, No. 

43, Oct., 1958. 
Notes on the Occurrence of Blue, and Snow Geese in the Sioux Lookout 

District, A. T. Cringan, No. 19, Oct., 1954. 
Pelee Island Pheasant Disease Findings, J. K. McGregor, No. 3 5, June, 

1957. 
Pheasant Harvest - 1957, Lake Huron District, R. E. Mason, No, 40, Apr. 

1958. 
Pelee Island Pheasant Shoot - 1952, C. 0. Bartlett, No. 9, Jan., 1953. 
Pelee Island Pheasant Shoots of 1953 and 1954, Some Statistics and 

Comments on the, C. 0. Bartlett, No. 22, Apr., 1955. 
Pelee Island Pheasant Shoot - 1955, Statistics on, L. J„ Stock, No. 27, 

Feb., 1956. 



- 49 - 

Pelee Island Pheasant Shoot - 1956, Statistics and Comments, L„ J. 

Stock, No. 34, Apr., 1957. 
Pelee Island Pheasant Shoot - 1957, Statistics and Comments, L. J. 

Stock, No. 39, Feb., 1958. 
Pelee Island Pheasant Shoot - 1958, Statistics and Comments, L. J. 

Stock, No. 43, Sept., 1959« 
Pelee Island Pheasant Shoot, 1959, Statistics and Comments, L. J. 

Stock, No. 50, Feb., i960. 
Pelee Island Pheasants, Investigations of Parasitism, J. K. McGregor, 

No. 27, Feb., 1956. 
Pheasant Council, Report of Inaugural Meeting of Midwest, Madelia, 

Minnesota, Jan. 14-15, 1953, J. K. Reynolds, No. 40, Apr., 

1958. 
Pheasant Densities, Land Use and Its Effect On, F. C. Van Nostrand, 

No. 38, Dec, 1957. 
Pheasant, North Norwich Experiment Report for 1949, J. F. Gage, No. 12, 

July, 1953o 
Pheasant Report, Lake Siracoe District, 1950, H. R. McCrimmon, No. 19, 

Oct., 1954. 
Pheasant Report, Lake Simcoe District, 1954, H. R. McCrimmon, No. 23, 

June, 1955. 
Pheasant Season, 1955, Lake Simcoe District, J. S. Dorland, No. 28, 

Apr., 1956. 
Pheasant Season, 1957, In the Regulated Townships of the Lake Simcoe 

District, J. S. Dorland, No. 39, Feb., 1958. 
Pheasant Stocking In New York State, A Proposal To Increase the 

Effectiveness of, Ben Bradley, No. 22, Apr., 1955. 
Pheasant Shoot for the Township of North Norwich, County of Oxford, 

for 1952, J. F. Gage, No. 13, Sept., 1953. 
Pheasant Shoot, North Norwich, Oxford County for 1954, W. H. Cantelon, 

No. 23, June, 1955. 
Pheasant Shoot for the Township of North Norwich, County of Oxford, 

1955, W. H. Cantelon, No. 29, June, 1956. 
Pheasant Season Report, 1956, Lake Huron District, W. H. Cantelon, 

No. 33, Feb., 1957. 
Pheasant Shoot Report, Township of North Norwich, County of Oxford 

for 1953, W. H. Cantelon, No. 17, June, 1954. 
Pheasant Survey, Plympton Township, 1956, A. R. Streib, No. 39, 

Feb., 1953. 
Possibilities of Successfully Introducing Hungarian Partridges to the 

Fort Frances Area, J. A. Farr, No. 46, May, 1959. 
Preliminary Report on the Relative Value of Releasing Pheasants the 

Day Before the Season, R. E. Mason, No. 45, Mar., 1959. 
Quail Trapping Operations In Southern Ontario, February - March, 1956, 

Ralph Smith, Charles Brown and Don Schierbaum, No. 29, 

June, 1956. 
Results of the Duck Banding Programme at the Toronto Islands, 1954 

and 1955, A. de Vos, No. 41, June, 1953. 
Ruffed Grouse Age and Sex, 1951, H. G. Lumsden, No. 3, Apr., 1952. 
Ruffed Grouse Age and Sex, Bagged During the 1957 Season in Sault Ste. 

Marie District, P. Kwaterowsky, No. 39, Feb., 1958. 
Ruffed Grouse, Age, Sex and Brood Counts of, H. G. Lumsden, No. 15, 

Feb., 1954. 
Ruffed Grouse Age and Sex Report Kenora District, 1957, G. C. Myers, 

No. 39, Feb., 1958. 



. - 50 - 

Ruffed Grouse Age and Sex, Swastika District, 1956, R. C. Johanson, 

No. 34* Apr. ; 1957. 
Ruffed Grouse Bag Census, 1956, Parry Sound Forest District, F. A. 

Walden, No, 35? June, 1957. 
Ruffed Grouse Age and Sex Bagged During 1958 Season In Swastika 

District, Roy C. Johanson, No. 45* liar., 1959. 
Ruffed Grouse Brood Count, H. G, Lumsden, No. 11, Kay, 1953° 
Ruffed Grouse Brood Counts In Tweed District, 1954* H, G. Lumsden, 

No. 22, Apr., 195 5 . 
Ruffed Grouse Brood Counts, 1955* Tweed District, P. A. Thompson, 

No. 25* Oct., 1955» 
Ruffed Grouse Censuc and Brood Counts in Port Arthur District, 195$, 

Wo Jo McKeown et al, No. 45* Mar., 1959. 
Ruffed Grouse In Parry Sound District, 19 58* J r A. Dube & F. A. Walden, 

No, 45, Mar., 1959. 
Ruffed Grouse Report, 1958, North Bay District, J. F. Gage, No. 45* 

Mar., 1959c 
Ruffed and Spruce Grouse Fall Sex and Age Ratios in Sioux Lookout 

District, 1957* D. W. Simkin, No. 39, Feb., 1958. 
Ruffed and Spruce Grouse Sex and Age Ratios In Sioux Lookout District, 

1958, D„ ¥. Simkin, No. 45, Mar., 1959. 
Ruffed Grouse Sex and Age Ratios, Tweed District, 1955, P. A. Thompson, 

No. 28, Apr., 1956. 
Ruffed Grouse, Significance of Mean Weight Variations In Weekly Samples 

of Juvenal, Thunder Bay District, 1957, R. A. Rvder, No. 39, 

Feb., 1958. 
Ruffed Grouse and Spruce Grouse In Chapleau District, 1957, V. 

Crichton, No. 39* Feb., 1958. 
Ruffed Grouse Sex and Age Data Tail and Wings, Pembroke District, 

1958, W. Re Catton, No. 45* Mar., 1959. 
Ruffed Grouse, Weight Variations of Juvenal, Port Arthur District, 

1957* E. J. Swift, No. 39, Feb., 1958. 
Ruffed Grouse, White River District, 1958, C. W. Douglas, No. 45, 

Mar e , 1959 . 
Sharptail and Ruffed Grouse in the Fort Frances Area, John Miller, 

No. 39, Feb., 1958o 
Sharptails, Management of, Fort Frances District, C. A. Elsey, No. 39, 

Feb., 1958c 
Songbird Mortality Following Soil Treatment With Aldrin, L. J. Stock 

& Jacob Kalff, No, 3 5* June, 1957 > 
Snow Geese at Winisk, 1955* V. Crichton, No. 28, Apr., 1956. 
Status of Sharp-tailed Grouse, Kenora District, A. R, Olsen, No. 50, 

Feb., I960. 
Water Birds Killed at Niagara, H. G. Lumsden, No. 4* June, 1952. 
Waterfowl Accidentally Taken in Muskrat Traps, N„ D„ Patrick, No. 16, 

Apr , 1954." 
Waterfowl Bag Checks Tweed District, 1953* H c G. Lumsden, No. 18, 

Aug., 1954. 
Waterfowl Bag, 1954, Species Composition of Western Region, A. T. 

Cringan, No. 25, Oct,, 1955« 
Waterfowl Bag Check, Tweed District, Sept. 19, 1959* W. W. Bittle, 

No, 49* Nov., 1959. 
Waterfowl Banding - Gogama District, 1956, W. R. Catton, No. 33* Feb., 

1957o 



- 51 - 

Waterfowl Banding, Gogama District, 1957, R. Catton, No. 39, Feb., 

1953. 
Waterfowl Banding, Gogama District, 195$* H. P. Endress, No. 44, 

Dec, 1953. 
Waterfowl Banding - Gogama - Grassy River Area, Alex Dzubin, No. 27, 

Feb., 1956. 
Waterfowl Band Recovery Program, Sioux Lookout District, Oct. 25/51- 

Feb. 13/53, a. T. Cringan, No. 16, Apr., 1954. 
Waterfowl Band Recovery Program, Sioux Lookout District, Third 

Progress Report, Feb. 14, 1953-Mar. 23, 1954, A. T, Cringan, 

No. 20, Dec, 1954. 
Waterfowl Band Recovery Program, Sioux Lookout District, Progress 

Report March 24/54- July 31/55, A. T. Cringan, No. 26, 

Dec, 1955. 
Waterfowl Breeding Ground Survey in Accessible Areas of Sioux Lookout 

District, 195$, D. W. Simkin, No. 43, Oct., 1953. 
Waterfowl Breeding Ground Survey, Quinte District, 1951, H. G. Lumsden, 

No. 2, Nov., 1951. 
Waterfowl Breeding Ground Survey, Tweed District, 1953, H. G. Lumsden, 

No. 17, June, 1954« 
Waterfowl Breeding Ground Survey, Tweed District, 1954, H. G. Lumsden, 

No. 21, Feb., 1955. 
Waterfowl Breeding Ground Survey, Tweed District, 1956, W. W. Bittle, 

No. 31, Oct., 1956. 
Waterfowl Breeding Stock in Quinte District, 1952, H. G. Lumsden, 

No. 11, May, 1953. 
Waterfowl Brood Production of Luther Marsh, Ontario, 1956, Investiga- 
tion of, H. Gray Merriam & D. I. Gillespie, No. 33, Feb., 

1957. 
Waterfowl Caught in Muskrat Traps, Kemptville District, 1955-56, 

G. C. Myers & J. B. Dawson, No. 32, Dec, 1956. 
Waterfowl Caught in Muskrat Traps, Kemptville District, 1956-57, 

D. J. Gawley, No. 39, Feb., 1953. 
Waterfowl Caught in Muskrat Traps in Patricia West and Patricia 

Central Districts, 1957-53, Season, D. W. Simkin, No. 44, 

Dec, 1953. 
Waterfowl Census, Whitefish Lake, Port Arthur District, Peter Nunan, 

No. 43, Oct., 1953. 
Waterfowl Conditions in the Mississippi Flyway, Winter of 1957-53, 

Summary of, A. S. Hawkins, No. 1+0, Apr., 1953. 
Waterfowl Hunters* Bag Checks, Tweed District, 1954, H. G. Lumsden, 

No. 22, Apr., 1955. 
Waterfowl Hunter's Bag Checks, Tweed District, 1955, P. A. Thompson, 

No. 26, Dec, 1955. 
Waterfowl Notes from Lake of the Woods, H. E. Deedo & H. G. Lumsden, 

No. 25, Oct., 1955. 
Waterfowl Notes from Whitefish Bay Lake of the Woods, J. Carswell, 

No. 24, Aug., 1955. 
Waterfowl Observations in the Cochrane District of Northern Ontario, 

C. 0. Bartlett, No. 3, Apr., 1952. 
Waterfowl Observations in the Perrault Falls Area, Sioux Lookout 

District, 1953-54, A. T. Cringan, No. 20, Dec, 1954. 
Waterfowl Observations, Perrault Falls Area, Sioux Lookout District 

Summer, 1954, A. T. Cringan, W. J. D. Stephens & J. Elbrink, 

No. 21, Feb., 1955. 
Waterfowl Production and Predation in the Marshes of Prince Edward 

County, A. T. Cringan, No. 46, May, 1959. 



. - 52 - 

Waterfowl Production Survey, Gogama District - a Comparison of Three 

Counting Methods, J. A. I-Iacfie, No. 44, Dec, 1958. 
Waterfowl Shooting Around a Small Sanctuary, D. N. Weill, No, 32, 

Deco, 1956. 
Waterfowl Survey of Northwestern Ontario, 1950, Lester W. Gray, No. 

32, Dec, 1956. 
Waterfowl Surveys, Helicopter Use on, H, G. Lumsden, No. 21, Feb., 1955. 
Waterfowl Taken in Msukrat Traps, Rideau District, 1954? N. D. Patrick, 

No. 21, Feb., 1955. 
Wetland Work in New York State, G. F. Boyer, No. 43, Oct., 195c 
Wild Turkey Project, Lindsay District, Ken Tolmie, No. 46, May, 1959. 
Wild Turkey Release in Lambton County, Report on, C, 0. Bartlett, 

No. 10, Mar., 1953. 
Wild Turkey in Southwestern Ontario, 0. L. Mellick & L. J. Stock, 

No. 50, Feb., I960. 
Willow Ptarmigan, Additional Notes on the Abundance of, In Northwestern 

Ontario, 1952-53, a. T. Cringan, No. 24, Aug., 1955. 
Willow Ptarmigan in Northwestern Ontario, Notes on the Abundance of, 

A. T. Cringan, No. 7, Oct., 1952. 
Wing and Tail Feathers Collection, Kenora District, 1958, M. Linklater, 

No. 45, Mar., 1959. 
Woodcock Census Report, May, 1955, Sault Ste. Marie District, M. W. I. 

Smith, No. 31, Oct., 1956. 
Woodcock Notes from Manitoulin Island, 1952, H. G. Lumsden, No. 12, 

July, 1953. 
Woodcock in Ontario, Northern Distribution, G. F. Boyer, No. 48, Sept., 

1959. 

CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT 

Considerations Concerning a Wetland Inventory for Southern Ontario, 

J. B. Dawson, No. 49, Nov., 1959. 
Enforcement Project, Port Arthur District, 195$, D„ D'Agostini, No. 

46, May, 1959. 
Experimental Wetlands Appraisal in Southern Ontario, H. Gray Merriam, 

No. 32, Dec, 1956. 
Farm Ponds, A. H. Berst & J. D. Roseborough, No. 29, June, 1956. 
Forest Wildlife Management, Clyde P. Patton, No. 34, Apr., 1957. 
Game Laws, C. H. D. Clarke, No. 18, Aug., 1954. 
Observations of Small Marsh Development In Upper New York State (with 

comments and criticisms by E. L„ Cheatum et al), J. B. 

Dawson, No. 24, Aug., 1955. 
Report on Field Trip to Marsh Development Areas in Northern New York 

State, Nov. 21-23, 1955, H. R. McCrimmon, No. 28, Apr., 1956. 
Report on the Seventeenth Midwest Wildlife Conference, Dec. 12-14, 1955 

Lafayette, Indiana, K. H. Loftus & J. K. Reynolds, No. 27, 

Feb., 1956. 
Report on the Twenty-fourth North American Wildlife Conference, New 

York, Mar. 1-4, 1959, J. K. Reynolds, No. 46, May, 1959. 
Some Thoughts on Game Laws, C. H. D. Clarke, No. 26, Dec, 1955. 
Wetland Management Program for Wildlife in Southern Ontario, Antoon 

de Vos, No. 34, Apr., 1957. 



[ 



- 53 - 



FORESTRY AND BOTANY 



Aquatic Weeds In Fishing Waters, Methods of Control for, H. R. 

McCriramon, No. 9, Jan., 1953. 
Blueberry Cropping Experiment in Port Arthur District, R. Boultbee, 

No. 28, Apr., 1956. 
English Water Grass in Tweed District, H. G. Lumsden, No. 15, Feb., 

1954. 
Evaluation of Common Aquatic Plants as Food for Waterfowl, Muskrats, 

Beaver and Moose, J. K. Reynolds, No. 23, June, 1955. 
Harvesting of Wild Rice, Fort Frances Forest Area, H. E. Pearson, 

No. 27, Feb., 1956. 
Kelvin Island Survey, 194$, P. A. Addison, No. 5, Aug., 1952. 
Preliminary Check-list of Trees, Shrubs and Woody Vines Native to 

Rondeau Provincial Park, R. D. Ussher, No. 29, June, 1956. 

FISH AND FISHERIES 

Additional Age and Growth Rates of Ontario Fish - Bluegill ( Lepomis 

macrochirus ) and Black Crappie ( Pomoxis nigro-maculatus ) , 

0. E. Devitt, No. 24, Aug., 1955. 
Additional Age and Growth Rates of Ontario Fish - Common White Sucker 

( Catostomus commersonnii ) , 0. E. Devitt, No. 16, Apr., 1954. 
Additional Age and Growth Rates of Ontario Fish - Lake Trout 

( Salvelinus namaycush ) , 0. E. Devitt, No. IS, Aug., 1954* 
Additional Age and Growth of Ontario Fish - Lake Whitefish ( Coregonus 

clupeaformis ) , 0. E. Devitt, No. 20, Dec, 1954. 
Additional Age and Growth Rates of Ontario Fish - Largemouth Bass 

( Micropterus salmoides ) , 0. E. Devitt, No. 14, Nov., 1953* 
Additional Age and Growth Rates of Ontario Fish - Pumpkinseed (Sunfish) 

( Lepomis gibbosus ) and Rock Bass ( Ambloplites rupestris ) , 

0. E. Devitt, No. 15, Feb., 1954. 
Additional Age and Growth Rates of Ontario Fish - Rainbow Trout ( Salmo 

gairdnerii) and Brown Trout ( Salmo trutta) , 0. E. Devitt, 

No. 19, Oct., 1954. 
Additional Age and Growth Rates of Ontario Fish - Smallmouth Bass 

( Micropterus dolomieui ) , 0. E. Devitt, No. 13, Sept., 1953. 
Additional Age and Growth Rates of Ontario Fish - Speckled Trout 

( Salvelinus fontinalis ) 9 0„ E. Devitt, No. 17, June, 1954. 
Age and Growth Rates of Ontario Fish Yellow Pikeperch or Pickerel 

( Stizostedion vitreum ) , 0. E. Devitt, No. 12, July, 1953* 
Age and Growth Rates of Ontario Northern Pike ( Esox lucius ) , 0. E. 

Devitt, No. 10, Mar., 1953. 
Additional Age and Growth Records of Ontario Fish - Yellow Perch 

(Perca flavescens ) , 0. E. Devitt, No. 11, May, 1953. 
Age and Size Records of Ontario Maskinonge ( Esox masquinongy ) , 0. E. 

Devitt, No. 9, Jan., 1953. 
Age and Growth Records of Ontario Sturgeon ( Acipenser fulvescens ) , 

0. E. Devitt, No. 34, Apr., 1957. 
Angler and Fisheries Management, H. R. McCrimmon, No. 23, June, 1955. 
Angling in Fanshawe Lake, Report of, J. D. Roseborough, No. 3$, Dec, 

1957. 



- 54 - 

Bass Lake Fishery Survey, 1955; H. R. McCriramon, No. 28, Apr,, 1956. 
Biological Survey of Boundary Lake, Conger Township, Parry Sound 

District, F. A. Walden, No. 26, Dec, 1955. 
Biological Survey of Compass Lake, District of Parry Sound, 1950, 

F. A. Walden, No. 22, Apr„, 1955" 
Biological Survey of Engineers Lake, Kenora District, P-, F. Chidley, 

No. 20, Dec, 1954c 
Biological Survey of Hilly Lake, Kenora District, Pc F. Chidley, 

No. 21, Feb., 1955. 
Biological Survey of Whitefish Bay, Lake of the Woods, P. F. Chidley, 

No. 16, Apr., 1954. 
Carp Introduction Into Ontario, Anonymous, No. 32, Dec, 1956. 
Carp on the North Shore of Lake Superior, Port Arthur and Geraldton 

Districts, R. A. Ryder, No. 31? Oct., 1956. 
Carp Removal Programme, Lake Scugog, H„ L McCrimmon, No. 31, Oct., 

1956. 
Case for Fish Hatcheries In Ontario, G. C Armstrong, No. 41, June, 

195^. 
Check-list of the Fishes Taken in the Attawapiskat River and Adjoining 

James Bay, 1957, R. A. Ryder, No. 41, June, 1958. 
Creel Census Conducted During the Year 1952 In the North Bay Forestry 

District, Initial Report on the General, R. E. Whitfield, 

No. 19, Oct., 1954* 
Creel Census Conducted at the Mississagi and White River Travel 

Permit Gates, K. H. Loftus, No. 17, June, 1954. 
Creel Census and Its Future Role in Fisheries Management of the 

Western Region, J. M. Fraser, No. 38, Dec, 1957. 
Creel Census - Kenora District, 1955, J. M. Fraser, No. 37, Oct., 1957. 
Creel Census and Lake Survey - Fanshawe Lake, M. G. Johnson, No. 38, 

Dec, 1957. 
Creel Census of the Black Sturgeon Area, 1956, R. A, Ryder, No. 39, 

Feb., 1958. 
Creel Census of the Black Sturgeon Area, 1957, C. A. Rettie, No. 40, 

Apr,, 1958. 
Creel Census Study on Speckled Trout, J. F e Gage, No. 10, Mar., 1953. 
Creel Census Report for Eugenia Hydro Pond, 1952., J. F„ Gage, No. 22, 

Apr., 1955. 
Creel Census Report - 1953 Sault Ste, Marie District, Kenneth H. 

Loftus, No, 20, Dec, 1954* 
Creel Census, Sault Ste. Marie, 1955, K. H. Loftus, No. 31, Oct., 1956. 
Creel Census 1956, Sault Ste. Marie District, No. 38, Dec, 1957. 
Coarse Fish Removal at Spring Valley Mill Pond, Waterloo County, J. F. 

Gage, No, 34, Apr., 1957o 
Coarse Fish Removal, Heart Lake, 1957, Murray G. Johnson, No. 40, 

Apr., 1958, 
Commercial Fisheries Management, A. H. Berst, No. 26, Dec, 1955. 
Commercial Fishing in Ontario, G. C. Armstrong, No. 21, Feb., 1955. 
Comparison of the Rate of Growth Exhibited by the Progeny of Hatchery 

Reared Speckled Trout and Lake Nipigon Wild Trout Obtained 

at the Dorian Rearing Station, 1950, G. C. Armstrong, No. 24, 

Aug., 1955. 
Determination by Units of the Number and General Location of Tourist 

Outfitters 9 Camps in Zone #2 on the Basis of Fish Production, 

K„ H. Loftus, Noo 18, Aug., 1954. 
Developments in the Mechanics of Hatchery Operations, R. A. Weir, No. 

41, June, 1958. 



- 55 - 

Effect of Distributing Eyed Whitefish ( Coregonus clupeaformis Mitchill) 

and Yellow Pickerel ( Stizostedion vitreum Mitchill) Eggs on 

the Commercial Fisheries of Rainy Lake, Ontario, C. A. Elsey, 

No. 48, Sept., 1959. 
Evolution of a Natural Trout Lake Into a Warm-water Lake, R. A. Ryder, 

No. 29, June, 1956. 
Fishflake Feeding Experiment With Speckled Trout, 1951, a. H. Berst, 

No. 11, May, 1953. 
Fish Poisoning, Kelly Lake, King, Ontario, M. M. Telford, No. 16, 

Apr., 1954. 
Fish Poisoning Project Report for Sunova Lake, County of Oxford, Ont., 

J. F. Gage, No. 46, May, 1959. 
Fish Tagging Studies In Whitefish Bay Lake of the Woods In 1954 and 

1955, J. M. Fraser, No. 32, Dec, 1956. 
Game Fish, Management of, H. R. McCrimmon, No. 25, Oct., 1955. 
Hatchery Experiment With Ouananiche Eggs, North Bay Hatchery, 

Redbridge, Ontario, 1949, R. E. Whitfield, No. 10, Mar., 1953. 
Hybrids of Salvelinus, F. E. J. Fry, No. 34, Apr., 1957. 
Increased Whitefish Production Through Commercial Fishing During the 

Whitefish Spawning Period In Four Waters of the Kenora 

District, J. M. Fraser, No. 28, Apr., 1956. 
Lake Erie Smelt Harvest By Sports Fishermen, J. D. Roseborough, No. 

50, Feb., I960. 
Lake Trout Studies Conducted In the Port Arthur District, 1951, 

Progress Report On Marked, G. C. Armstrong, No. 13, Sept., 

1953. 
Minnow Situation In the Kenora District, J. M. Fraser, No. 39, Feb., 

1958. 
Nogies Creek Fish Sanctuary, J. C. Weir, No. 27, Feb., 1956. 
Occurrence of the Black Crappie, Pomoxis nigromaculatus In the Ontario 

Waters of Lake Superior, R. A. Ryder, No. 48, Sept., 1959. 
Pickerel Destruction at Healey Falls, 1952, Investigation of, E. D. 

Lapworth, No. 11, May, 1953. 
Pickerel ( Stizostedion v. vitreum ) (Mitchill) Movements in Lake 

Superior and the Nipigon River System, R. A. Ryder, No. 3 5, 

June, 1957. 
Pickerel and Northern Pike Tagging Studies in the Winnipeg River, 

District of Kenora in 1954 and 1955, J. M. Fraser, No. 35, 

June, 1957. 
Pickerel Population Study in Lake Superior and the Nipigon River 

System, 1956, R. A. Ryder, No. 37, Oct., 1957. 
Pickerel Project Severn River, Washago, 1950-1951, H. R. McCrimmon, 

No. 15, Feb., 1954. 
Pickerel Spawning in Melville Creek and In Consecon Lake, Investigation, 

J. M. Fraser, No. 19, Oct., 1954. 
Pike In Lake St. Clair and Western Lake Erie, 1948, K. H. Loftus, No. 

23, June, 1955. 
Ponds In Lake Simcoe District With Dams Exceeding Three Feet In 

Height, Jan. 1, 1952, H. R. McCrimmon, No. 18, Aug., 1954. 
Preliminary Report on Free Fall Planting of Fish from Aircraft, North 

Bay Forestry District, 1952-1953, R. E. Whitfield, No. 14, 

Nov., 1953. 
Report on the Waters of the Rob Roy Trout Club, J. F. Gage, No. 25, 

Oct., 1955. 
Salmon Project at Attawapiskat, Report on August Section of Pacific, 

H. G. Cumraing, No. 41, June, 195$. 
Rondeau Bay Fishery Survey, May to October, 1950, A. H. Berst, No. 33, 

Feb., 1957. 



- 56 - 

Sea Lamprey ( Petromyzon marinus ) Sea Lamprey Project, Thessalon, 1948, 

Investigation of the, R. E. Whitfield, No. 12, July, 1953. 
Smallmouth Bass, Preliminary Report on Spawning of, In Long Point 

Bay, Lake Erie, 1953, A H. Berst, No. 15, Feb., 1954. 
Smelt Fishing Experiment, Lake Erie, A. H. Berst, No. 17, June, 1954. 
Transfer of Sublegal Maskinonge from Marl and Wigwam Lakes to Rainy 

Lake, District of Fort Frances, J. M. Fraser, No. 29, June, 

1956. 
Warm Water Fishes In Fort Frances District, 1957, C. A. Elsey, No. 39, 

Feb., 1958. 
Water Conditions to Provide Lake Salmon for Angling, H. R. McCrimmon, 

No. 12, July, 1953. 
Winter Fishing Pressure on Lake Trout, Port Arthur District, 1957, 

R. A. Ryder, No. 40, Apr., 1958. 
Winter Search for Ouananiche, Athelstane and Cliff Lakes, Port 

Arthur District, R. A. Ryder, No. 32, Dec, 1956. 

MAMMALS 

Additional Information On Sampling Western Region Deer Herd, R. 

Boultbee, No. 44, Dec, 195c 
Annual Changes In Numbers of the Western Region Deer Herd, R. Boultbee, 

No. 36, Aug., 1957. 
Bear Investigation Programme, Swastika District, N. D. Patrick, No. 

43, Oct., 195c 
Bear Kill Spring of 1955, Sault Ste. Marie District, M. W. I. Smith, 

No. 29, June, 1956. 
Bears In Ontario, Notes On Black, H. G. Lumsden, No, 29, June, 1956. 
Beaver Catch Sex Ratio and Size-Class Analysis for the 1952-53 

Trapping Season in the White River Forest District, C. W. 

Douglas, No. 21, Feb., 1955. 
Beaver Census, 1956, Kenora District, P. A. Thompson, No. 35, June, 

1957. 
Beaver Census, 1957, Preliminary Analysis of Reports from Seven 

Districts on Aerial, R. Standfield, No. 39, Feb., 1958. 
Beaver Control by Means of an Electric Fence, K. J. Tolmie, No. 48, 

Sept., 1959. 
Beaver Inventory, Anonymous, No. 7, Oct., 1952. 
Beaver Project, Kenora District, 1957-58, P. A. Thompson, No. 46, 

May, 1959. 
Beaver Season, Sioux Lookout District, Analysis of the 1950-51, A. T. 

Cringan, No. 2, Nov., 1951. 
Beaver Survey, Geraldton District, Report on Results of the 1956 

Aerial, H. G. Cumming, No. 3 5, June, 1957. 
Beaver, Sexing of, Arnold H. Kennedy, No. 8, Nov., 1952. 
Beaver Survey, 1958, Lake Simcoe District, J. S. Dorland, No. 44, 

Dec, 1958. 
Beaver Transects, the Accuracy of, R. Boultbee, No. 43, Oct., 1958. 
Big Game Browse and Pellet Survey in Sioux Lookout District, D. W. 

-Simkin, No. 46, May, 1959. 
Black Bear ( Ursus americanus americanus ) , Size, Rate of Growth and 

Longevity of, C. W. Douglas, No. 49, Nov., 1959. 
Bounties on Red Fox Paid by Prince Edward County, A. T. Cringan, 

No. 44, Dec, 1958. 



- 57 - 

Caribou On the Islands of Lake Nipigon, C. H. D. Clarke (included 

In Kelvin Island Survey, 194$), P. A. Addison, No. 5, Aug., 

1952. 
Caribou on the Slate Islands, Helicopter Survey of, H. G« Cumming, 

No. 25, Oct., 1955. 
Combining Age-class Data from Different Sources (Western Region Deer 

Herd), R. Boultbee, No. 44, Dec, 1953. 
Computation of Current Potential Rates of Reproduction of White- 
tailed Deer from Checking Station Data, A. T. Cringan, 

No. 25, Oct., 1955. 
Concluding Studies on the Moose Rut, H". Backstrom] No. 14? Nov., 1953. 
Cottontail Index - Pelee Island, 1953-59, L. J. Stock, No. 49, Nov., 

1959. 
Cottontail Rabbits, Census for, Lake Huron District, 195^-59, R. E. 

Mason, No. 49, Nov., 1959. 
Cottontail Rabbit Kill in the Niagara Peninsula, A. R„ Murna, No. 29, 

June, 1956. 
Cougars in the White River District, Reports of, C. W. Douglas, No. 

17, June, 1954. 
Deer Aging Tests, Results of, R. L. Hepburn, No. 37, Oct., 1957. 
Deer Browse Survey and Pellet Group Count, Rat Lake Concentration 

Area, W. L. MacKinnon, No. 50, Feb., I960. 
Deer Data Collection In Rideau District, 1951-53, N. D. Patrick, 

No. 19, Oct., 1954. 
Deer and Elk Inventories, North Bay District, 1955, C. 0. Bartlett, 

No. 30, Aug., 1956. 
Deer Habitat Management Project In South Canonto Township, Report on 

Meeting to Discuss the, Tweed District Office, Aug. 2$, 

1953, Anonymous, No. 1+8, Sept., 1959. 
Deer Hunt Report, Pembroke District, 1956, K. K. Irizawa, No. 36, 

Aug., 1957. 
Deer Hunting from Licenced Camps in the Sioux Lookout District, Report 

On 1951 Non-Resident, A. T. Cringan, No. 3, Apr.., 1952. 
Deer Inventory, District of Sault Ste. Marie, 1955, M. W. I. Smith, 

No. 30, Aug., 1956. 
Deer Inventory of Elgin County, 195S, D. Neill, et al, No. 42, Aug., 

195S. 
Deer Inventory, Sioux Lookout District, 1955, J. A. Macfie, No. 30, 

Aug., 1956o 
Deer Kill by Causes Other than Legal Hunting, H. G, Lumsden, No. 29, 

June, 1956. 
Deer Kill Curves from Ontario, Some Distortions In, H. G. Lumsden, 

No. 30, Aug., 1956. 
Deer In Lake Simcoe District, J. S. Dorland, No. IB, Aug., 1954. 
Deer Mortality In the Lake Erie District, 1956, L„ J, Stock (compiled 

by), No. 34, Apr., 1957. 
Deer Mortality in North Bay District, F. E. Sider, No. 4, June, 1952. 
Deer Mortality Survey, Kenora District, Winter of 1957, V. Macins, 

No. 36, Aug., 1957. 
Deer Mortality Survey, 1956, Sioux Lookout District, E. H. Stone, 

-No. 33, Feb., 1957. 
Deer Notes from the Schooner Lake Area, H. G. Lumsden, No. 4, June, 

1952. 
Deer in the Peterborough County Crown Game Preserve, Overbrowsing By, 

A. H. Lawrie, No. 5, Aug., 1952. 
Deer Population, Gogama District, J. M. Taylor & D. G. Waldriff, 

No. 12, July, 1953. 
Deer Range in Tweed District, 1955, P. A. Thompson, No. 30, Aug., 1956. 



- 53 - 

Deer Report, 1956, Kemptville District, J. B. Dawson, No. 36, Aug., 

1957. 

Deer Sample Size for Western Region, R. Boultbee, No. 36, Aug., 1957. 
Deer Season, Kemptville District, 1957? J. B„ Dawson, No. 42, Aug., 

1956. 
Deer Season, Lake Huron District, 1957, R. E. Mason, No, 42, Aug., 

1958. 

Deer Season In North Bay District, 1955, C. 0. Bartlett, No. 30, 

Aug., 1956. 
Deer Season In Pembroke District, 1954, K. K. Irizawa, No. 24, Aug., 

1955. 
Deer Season In Pembroke Forest District, 1956, K K. Irizawa, No. 36, 

Aug., 1957. 
Deer Season In the Sault Ste. Marie Forest District, 1956, M. W. I, 

Smith, C. L. Perrie & M. T. Watson, No. 36, Aug., 1957. 
Deer Survey, Sault Ste. Marie District, 1955, M. W. I. Smith, No. 30, 

Aug., 1956. 
Deer In Tweed District, Management Plan for, H. G. Lumsden, No. 19, 

Oct., 1954. 
Deer, 1952, Tweed District, H. G. Lumsden, No. 14, Nov., 1953- 
Deer, 1954, Tweed District, P. A. Thompson, No. 23, June, 1955. 
Deer, 1955, Tweed District, P. A. Thompson, No. 34, Apr., 1957. 
Deer Winter Mortality, Kenora District, 1955-56, P. A. Thompson, No. 

33, Feb., 1957. 
District Project for Collecting Data from Big Game Hunters, D. W. 

Simkin, No. 46, May, 1959. 
Elliott-Haynes Report, 1956, Elliott-Haynes, No. 30, Aug., 1956. 
Experimental Traplines Report, Season 1951-52, A. de Vos, No. 6, Sept., 

1952. 
Experimental Traplines Report, Season, 1952-53, J. K. Reynolds, No. 

14, Nov., 1953. 
Experimental Traplines Report, Season of 1953-54, J. K. Reynolds, 

No. 23, June, 1955. 
Experimental Trapline, 1955-56, Chapleau District Summary of, F. 

Johnston, No. 33, Feb., 1957. 
Fisher Litter Size In the Patricias, 1955, H. G. Lumsden, No. 26, 

Dec, 1955. 
Fisher Live Trapping In Algonquin Park, Winter of 1957, M. G. Loucks, 

No. 40', Apr., 195S. 
Fisher Live Trapping, Pembroke District, 195$, W. R. Catton, No. 43, 

Oct., 195c 
Fisher and Marten Fluctuation In Sex Ratios During the 1952-53 

Trapping Season, White River District, C. W. Douglas, No. 

14, Nov., 1953. 
Foxes Bountied During the Years 1951-2-3 in Rideau District, Ralph 

Peck, No. 29, June, 1956. 
Game Inventory of the Caribou Crown Game Preserve, R. H„ Trotter, 

Mo. 37, Oct., 1957. 
Gogama District Aerial Beaver Census, 1959, E. H. Stone, No. 50, 

Feb., I960. 
Have We Too Many Moose? (Sweden) (T. Wennmark] No. 16, Apr., 1954. 
Initial Plan for Deer Habitat Manipulation In Coniferous and Mixedwood 

Swamps of South Canonto Township, Frontenac County, A. T. 

Cringan, No. 3$, Dec, 1957. 
Live Marten Trapping, 1950-1954, Summary of, V. Crichton, No. 24, Aug., 

1955. 
Manitoulin Archery Season in 1956, W. A. Morris, No. 36, Aug., 1957. 
Marking Wing Struts on Beaver and Otter Aircraft for Surveys, Tom 

Cook, No. 48, Sept., 1959. 



- 59 - 

Marten, Directions for Live Trapping (revised), V. Crichton, No. 35, 

June, 1957. 
Marten and Fisher Live Trapping Algonquin Park, 1957, P. W. Swanson, 

No. 39, Feb., 1953. 
Marten and Fisher Production in the Sioux Lookout Wildlife Management 

District, A. T. Cringan, No. 23, June, 1955. 
Marten, Fisher, Mink and Otter in Ontario, Sex Ratio of, Progress 

Report for 1953-54, J. K. Reynolds, No. 22, Apr., 1955. 
Marten Live Trapping, Chapleau District, 1956, V. Crichton, No. 33, 

Feb., 1957. 
Marten Research, Chapleau District, May 11-May 31, 1957, V. Crichton, 

No. 33, Dec, 1957. 
Marten Research, Apr. 24th-May 14th, 195$, Chapleau District, 

V. Crichton, No. 43, Oct., 1953. 
Marten Trapping Spring Gogama District, 1953, B. G. Johnson, No. 43, 

Oct., 1953. 
Marten Trapping Project White River District, Report on a Winter, 

E. A. Pozzo, No. 32, Dec, 1956. 
Methods and Costs of Collecting Moose Returns, Port Arthur District, 

1957 Season, D. D»Agostini, No. 42, Aug., 1953. 
Methods and Costs of Collecting Moose Returns, Port Arthur District, 

1953 Season, D. D 9 Agostini, No. 43, Sept., 1959. 
Mink Catch, Temporal Distribution of 1951-52, A. T. Cringan, No. 9, 

Jan., 1953. 
Mink Sex Ratios, 1951-52, A. T. Cringan, No. 9, Jan., 1953. 
Moose Aerial Census - Wat comb - Tannin Area, 1952, a. T. Cringan, 

No. 15, Feb., 1954. 
Moose Aerial Survey, Sioux Lookout District, Mar., 1957, R. H. Trotter, 

No. 37, Oct., 1957. 
Moose Browse Survey, Gogama District, 1953, J. A. Macfie, No. 42, 

Aug., 1953. 
Moose Browse Survey - Gogama District, 1959, G. E. Vozeh & A. 

Zimmerman, No. 49, Nov., 1959. 
Moose Census and Kill In the Chapleau District, 1953, V. Crichton, 

No. 19, Oct., 1954. 
Moose Helicopter Survey on Big Island, 1955, Kenora Report On, R. 

Simkoe, No. 31, Oct., 1956. 
Moose Hunting Regulations in the Western Region, 1930-1953, No. 21, 

Feb., 1955. 
Moose in Tweed District, 1954, Status of, H. G„ Lumsden, No. 24, 

Aug., 1955. 
Moose Inventory, 1953, Gogama District, J. a. Macfie, No. 42, Aug., 

1953. 
Moose Inventory, Port Arthur District, 1957, R. A. Ryder, No. 37, 

Oct., 1957. 
Moose Inventory, Sault Ste. Marie District, 1953, P. Kwaterowski, 

No. 42, Aug., 1953. 
Moose Investigations, Experimental, Using a Helicopter Carried Out 

In the Cedar River Area, Sioux Lookout District, Aug., 1954, 

A. T. Cringan and E. H. Stone, No. 27, Feb., 1956. 
Moose Investigations In the Perrault Falls Area During the Summer 

of 1954, A. T. Cringan, W. J. D. Stephen and J. Elbrink, 

No. 25, Oct., 1955. 
Moose Investigations Using a Helicopter, Experimental, A. T. Cringan, 

No. 19, Oct., 1954. 
Moose Kill Census In Port Arthur Forest District, 1943, A. de Vos, 

No. 1, July, 1951. 
Moose Kill In Sweden, 1951, Anonymous, No, 7, Oct., 1952. 



- 60 - 

Moose Movement Studies, 1952, Preliminary, A. de Vos, & R. L. Pearson, 

No. 24, Aug., 1955. 
Moose Season In the District of Sault Ste. Marie, 1956, A. J. 

Herridge (compiled by), No. 37, Oct., 1957. 
Moose Season Report for Geraldton District, 1955, H. G. Cumming, 

No. 31, Oct., 1956. 
Moose Season Report, North Bay District, 1955, C. 0. Bartlett, No. 

31, Oct., 1956. 
Moose Season Report, Sioux Lookout District, 1955, J« A. Macfie, 

No. 31, Oct., 1956. 
Moose Season, the 1953 Non-resident, A. T. Cringan, No. IS, Aug., 1954. 
Moose Tagging Program, Sioux Lookout District, 1959, D. W. Simkin & 

E. H. Stone, No. 1+8, Sept., 1959. 
Mortality In the Western Region Deer Herd, R. Boultbee, No. 30, 

Aug., 1956. 
Muskrat Aging and Sexing, Lake Simcoe District, Fall of 1956, J. S. 

Dorland, No. 33, Feb., 1957. 
Muskrat Impoundments in the Region of Hearst, Ontario, June 1-6, 

1953, Investigation of, R. D. Harris, No. 19, Oct., 1954. 
Muskrats Lake Erie District, Season Summarv for 1957, A. R. Streib, 

& L. J. Stock, No. 3d, Dec, 1957. 
Muskrat Studies, Tweed District, 1955, P. A. Thompson, No. 27, 

Feb., 1956. 
Notes on Northern Seals and Whales Along the Hudson Bay Coast Between 

Cape Churchill and Cape Henrietta Maria, T. M. Nicholl, 

No. 44, Dec, 1953. 
Notes on the North Shore of Lake Superior from Marathon to Gargantua 

Harbour and on Michipicoten Island, H, G. Cumming, No. 21, 

Feb., 1955. 
Notes on Trip to St. Ignace Island, July 16-21, 1956, H. G. Cumming, 

No. 33, Feb., 1957. 
Notes on the Use of Aircraft for Locating Deer In the Lake Erie 

District, A. R. Streib & L. J. Stock, No. 42, Aug., 195$. 
Polar Bear Inventory, 1955-56 Patricia Central District, J. A, Macfie, 

No. 29, June, 1956. 
Porcupine ( Erethizon dorsatum ) , Observations On the, A. T. Cringan, 

No. 2, Nov., 1951. 
Possible Effects of Forest Fire On Big Game In the Sioux Lookout 

Forest Protection District, A. T. Cringan, No. 36, Aug., 1957' 
Raccoon Harvest, Lake Simcoe District, 1957-5^, J. S. Dorland, No. 

43, Oct., 195^. 
Raccoon Hunting In Southern Ontario, H. G„ Lumsden, No. 25, Oct., 1955. 
Recuperative Powers of Western Region Deer Herd, R. Boultbee, No. 30, 

Aug., 1956. 
Red Fox Movements In Lake Huron District, 1957-1959, R. E. Mason, No. 

50, Feb., I960. 
Red Fox Population In Geraldton District, H. G. Cumming, No. 29, 

June, 1956. 
Report of Capture of Marked Deer, Parry Sound District, F. A. Walden 

& W. L. MacKinnon, No. 27, Feb., 1956. 
Report of Deer Survey, 1959, Blair and Mowat Townships, Parry Sound 

District, W. E. Ellerington, No. 50, Feb., i960. 
Seasonal Effects and the 'Western Region Deer Herd, R. Boultbee, No. 

36, Aug., 1957. 
Sex Ratios of the Western Region Deer Herd, R. Boultbee, No. 1+0, 

Apr., 195S. 



- 61 - 

Slate Islands, Report of, July 13-17, 1953, A Trip To, A. de Vos, 

No. 31, Oct., 1956. 
Slate Island Aerial Survey, Jan. 26th, 1954, C. E. Perrie, No. 31, 

Oct., 1956. 
Slate Islands Investigation, Sept. 12-17, 1955, C. W. Douglas, No. 31, 

Oct., 1956. 
Slate Islands, Report on 1956 Trip to, H. G. dimming, No. 32, Dec, 

1956. 
Small Game Hunters* Mail Bag Survey Carried Out in Lake Huron District, 

1953-59, T. M. Nicholl, No. 50, Feb., I960. 
Small Mammal Survey, 1956, H. G. Lumsden (compiled by) No. 35, June, 

1957. 
Small Mammal Trapping, Puslinch Township, Wellington County, A. de Vos, 

No. 26, Dec, 1955. 
Some Observations of the Behaviour of a Pack of Wolves In Winter, 

Bruce Turner, No. 4$, Sept., 1959. 
Some Public Relations Problems In Deer Management, H. G. Lumsden, 

No. 23, June, 1955. 
Structure of the Deer Herd In Western Region, R. Boultbee, No. 30, 

Aug., 1956. 
Summary of Fur Returns By Ontario Game Management Districts, 1951-52, 

No. 11, May, 1953. 
Summaries of Fur Returns by Ontario Game Management Districts for the 

Years 1952-53 and 1953-54, No. 21, Feb., 1955. 
Summary of Fur Returns by Ontario Game Management Districts for the 

Year 1954-1955, No. 26, Dec, 1955. 
Summary of Fur Returns by Ontario Game Management Districts, 1955-56, 

No. 32, Dec, 1956. 
Summary of Fur Returns by Ontario Game Management Districts, 1956-57, 

No. 33, Dec, 1957. 
Survival Rates, Apparent and Actual of the Western Region Deer Herd, 

n f? R. Boultbee, No. 40, Apr., 195$. 
Till Algjagare - For the Moosehunter, S. & L. Liljefors, No. 19, 

„ „0ct., 1954. 
Till Algjagare - For the Moosehunter, S. & L. Liljefors, No. 20, Dec, 

1954. 
Timber Wolves Killed in 1943 and 1949, An Analysis of the Sex Ratio 

Of, A. de Vos, No. 25, Oct., 1955. 
Value of Furs Produced In the Patricia West and Patricia Central 

Wildlife Management Districts, A. T. Cringan, No. 27, Feb., 

1956. 
Variability In Deer Age-Measurements, Western Region 1951 to 1956 

Inclusive, R. Boultbee, No. 36, Aug., 1957. 
Variation In Survival Rate of the Western Deer Herd, R. Boultbee, 

No. 34, Apr., 1957. 
Vertebrate Animal Life Observed In the Fort Severn Area, August, 1957, 

D. W. Simkin, No. 41, June, 195c 
Western Region Deer Check Station, R. Boultbee, No. 30, Aug., 1956. 
White-tailed Deer Crash, E. C. Cross, No. 11, May, 1953. 
Wildlife Rabies, C. H. D. Clarke, No. 31, Oct., 1956. 
Winter Live Trapping, Chapleau Game Preserve, 1957, V. Crichton, No. 

34, Apr., 1957. 
Winter of 1955/56 and the 'Western Region Deer Herd, R. Boultbee, No. 

36, Aug., 1957. 
Winter Trip from Weenusk to Hawley Lake, February, 1955, J* A. Macfie, 

No. 41, June, 195c 



. • >>. 



- 62 - 

Wolf Poisoning Experiment, Kenora District, 1959* M. Linklater, No. 

43, Sept., 1959. 
Wolf Poisoning Predator Control Port Arthur District, 1957-5$, C. A. 

Rettie, No. 43, Oct., 195$. 
Wolf Poisoning Project, Port Arthur District, East Side, 1959, E. J. 

Swift, No. 43, Sept., 1959. 
Wolf Poisoning Project, Port Arthur District, West Side, 1959, W. J. 

McKeown, Mo. 4$, Sept., 1959. 
Wolf Project for Sioux Lookout District, 1959, J. S. Sayers, No. 48, 

Sept., 1959. 
Wolves In Tweed District, 1954> Status of, H. G. Lumsden, No. 25, Oct., 

1955. 

GENERAL REPORTS 

Address to Ontario Game Breeders Association, July 15, 1959, Dr. F. W. 

Remmler, No. 49, Nov., 1959. 
Ontario Sale of Licences for 1956, W. Mulholland (compiled by), No. 

37, Oct., 1957. 
Private Shooting Grounds - Paradise Lost or Paradise Regained?, C. H. 

D. Clarke, No. 34, Apr., 1957. 
Progress Report on the Management of Cedar Swamps In South Canonto 

Township, May 29, 1959, J. W. Keenan, No. 4$, Sept., 1959. 
Random Notes on Game Conditions In Denmark, H. G. Lumsden, No. 17, 

June, 1954. 
Report On Comparison of Fish and Wildlife Workload By Districts, F. A. 

Walden, No. 47, July, 1959. 
Report On Discussion With J. D. Robertson, Manitoba, Predatory 

Control Officer, the Pas, Manitoba, July 4, 5, 6, 1955, R. 

Simkoe, No. 25, Oct., 1955. 
Road Kills, Lake Simcoe District, J. S. Dorland, No. 35, June, 1957. 
Russian Hunting, Anonymous, Ho. 40, Apr., 1953. 
Training of Elkhound, Anonymous, No. 15, Feb., 1954. 
Wildlife Management Plans In County Forests, J. F. Gage, No. 25, 

Oct., 1955. 
Wildlife Notes From James Bay, A. Gagnon & H. G. Lumsden, No. 33, 

Feb., 1957. 
Unpublished Survey Methods, George H. Kelker, No, 22, Apr., 1955.